Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ChairmanPoo]

That's pretty much the official catholic stance, AFAIK. They also have a second ammendment, with God intervening directly after humans became human enough "to create human souls", whatever that means.

[Blacken]

Also, as for the First Amendment, while I'm not particularly familiar with American law, I don't think it forbids the imposition of the values of a certain religion

It does, in the sense that you can't have laws respecting any particular religion. So really, any law that has religious reasoning behind it is unconstitutional, as is any law that favors one religion over another, or religion in general over no religion, or no religion over religion, or anything like that.

That's not what it means, at all. When it uses the term 'respecting', it should be considered to be in the form of 'paying homage (or disrespect) to', not 'with regard to'. Someone can push for something to be outlawed on moral grounds; their morals may come from religion or not, that doesn't matter. What is unacceptable and unconstitutional is to codify law in terms of a specific religion or group of religions.

The alternate impression is very well beloved among the tiny-minded militant-atheist groups, but doesn't really have a lot of historical backing. (I am an atheist--but I don't much care for the rest of them...)

I'm glossing over it all a bit, obviously, but this is the gist of it.

[G-Flex]

Also, as for the First Amendment, while I'm not particularly familiar with American law, I don't think it forbids the imposition of the values of a certain religion

It does, in the sense that you can't have laws respecting any particular religion. So really, any law that has religious reasoning behind it is unconstitutional, as is any law that favors one religion over another, or religion in general over no religion, or no religion over religion, or anything like that.

That's not what it means, at all. When it uses the term 'respecting', it should be considered to be in the form of 'paying homage (or disrespect) to', not 'with regard to'. Someone can push for something to be outlawed on moral grounds; their morals may come from religion or not, that doesn't matter. What is unacceptable and unconstitutional is to codify law in terms of a specific religion or group of religions.

I'm honestly not even sure where you're differing from me there. Yeah, someone can push for a law that's based on his own morals, but the law itself cannot be explicitly religious. The reasoning can be implicit, sure, but if the courts find the law's reasoning to be strictly religious, it's unconstitutional.

[Jude]

That's pretty much the official catholic stance, AFAIK. They also have a second ammendment, with God intervening directly after humans became human enough "to create human souls", whatever that means.

Well, that's pretty much straight from Genesis: God "breathed life" into Adam, or something along those lines. It's not "creating a soul" exactly, since the idea of a soul was grafted onto Judeo-Christian beliefs from Greek paganism, but it's God infusing the energy of life into the body, more or less

[Osmosis Jones]

You're better off in the Kenneth Miller camp, he's a Catholic that strictly believes in evolution as not influenced by God, aside from creating the laws of the universe and, presumably, knowing that they would lead to humanity, being God and all.

Ahhh Ken Miller is a champ. If you have an hour or so to spare, watch the first half of this. It's him detailing his role in the trial to prevent ID being taught as science (he was called as an expert witness for the science side of things).

He systematically destroys ID as a scientific theory, and does so in a breathtakingly hilarious manner. Seriously, it's good stuff.

2nd hour is just Q&A with audience, which isn't as interesting.

[Jude]

Yeah, I saw him give a talk at Upenn once on his book and how he testified to rip apart the ID argument for being included in schools. This guy should be the model for how all sensible religious people accept evolution

[Neonivek]

Yeah, I saw him give a talk at Upenn once on his book and how he testified to rip apart the ID argument for being included in schools. This guy should be the model for how all sensible religious people accept evolution

Ignoring the obvious undertones of this statement I should say that the average person's understanding of evolution is pretty much magic.

So evolution is hardly the bastion of logic when it runs on magic.

[Duke 2.0]

Yeah, I saw him give a talk at Upenn once on his book and how he testified to rip apart the ID argument for being included in schools. This guy should be the model for how all sensible religious people accept evolution

Ignoring the obvious undertones of this statement I should say that the average person's understanding of evolution is pretty much magic.

So evolution is hardly the bastion of logic when it runs on magic.

So people who actually understand it are wizards?

[Jude]

Yeah, I saw him give a talk at Upenn once on his book and how he testified to rip apart the ID argument for being included in schools. This guy should be the model for how all sensible religious people accept evolution

Ignoring the obvious undertones of this statement I should say that the average person's understanding of evolution is pretty much magic.

So evolution is hardly the bastion of logic when it runs on magic.

I have no idea what you're saying in this post

[kuro_suna]

If you ignore the creationist propaganda at a fundamental level evolution is basically the same as breeding animals or crops only extended to much longer timescales.

[Itnetlolor]

Yeah, I saw him give a talk at Upenn once on his book and how he testified to rip apart the ID argument for being included in schools. This guy should be the model for how all sensible religious people accept evolution

Ignoring the obvious undertones of this statement I should say that the average person's understanding of evolution is pretty much magic.

So evolution is hardly the bastion of logic when it runs on magic.

I have no idea what you're saying in this post

It sounds similar to a theory I had on the meaning of life.

We're gods in training, learning from our Father; Mortality is just the first step to understanding life, so we can create our own when we ascend. Or words to that effect.


EDIT:
I got an eerie feeling I'm going to be torn to shreds just by that statement alone. I didn't mean to troll if anyone thinks that.

Disregard the ignore; it's already been answered.

[Leafsnail]

We're gods in training, learning from our Father; Mortality is just the first step to understanding life, so we can create our own when we ascend. Or words to that effect.

If that is true, we clearly got a god's first year research project.

[Itnetlolor]

We're gods in training, learning from our Father; Mortality is just the first step to understanding life, so we can create our own when we ascend. Or words to that effect.

If that is true, we clearly got a god's first year research project.

I know I'm going to be opening an industrial can of worms just by mere mention of this, but when you consider abortion and how much it has infected the countryworld, and how religion has gotten far less popular because of Pro-Life and such; in regards to my theory, more of mankind has failed the first tests by not valuing life itself.

I mean, if you disregard the beginnings of a new soul, and have/force the mother give the go ahead to kill her own young before it has a chance to live; well, have fun justifying your reason when you cross over. Religion not only is trying to protect the young and defenseless, but also those who are able to make the choice of whether to make a life continue, despite conflicts of interest, and situations; or to take an easy way out, at the sacrifice of a pure innocent defenseless life.

May God have mercy on your soul if you don't know which is a better choice to make.


EDIT:
And none of that bullcrap about "A collection of cells doesn't equal a life or soul" or anything to that effect. It doesn't work, it's just a cop-out phrase. Anything that is made up of living cells is essentially a life, one way or another; regardless of form. Animal, Plant, or Man.

[Leafsnail]

Yeah, abortion is totally relevant to the existence of a god.

[Itnetlolor]

Yeah, abortion is totally relevant to the existence of a god.

I guess when you consider alignment; it seems more people aim to become a god of weath, war, or something along those lines (more a malevolent class, considering methods taken lately), which, if not properly balanced with more benevolent ones (which find alternative methods aside killing massive amounts of people, born or unborn; good or evil; uniform or disfigured), it could all become an ever-growing enormous self-destructive spiral, thereby ending a universe, rather than just a world, tops (just another apocalypse, serving as a reset button; rather than 'abort and goodbye'). And considering people mostly value their own life (or livelihood) more than others (regardless mortal or immortal), that's equally not as good for them, as it is for others. Simply put, it won't matter your alignment or intelligence, either way, how it would all end when it does, would best define stupid.

When you consider some personalities are viral to an effect, corrupting even the benevolent gods; you know it would all just end in one massive fiery maelstrom, or a royal beatdown by an elder god due to disappointment of his kin. Death would be too good for us, if so, so smashing our home (reality) would work better.

God may be all-loving, but He is a parent as well; and sometimes, if a child won't learn any other way (reprimand, punishment, grounding, curfew, etc.), sometimes, a firm kick in the ass will get the point across. The humiliation and pain combined should be enough, provided proper moderation of it. Just look back at the Old Testament. It was a way of life.