Thank you for saying I am succeeding in my attempts to provide instruction and information to the unlearned masses.
You are the dumbest fuck to ever find their way to these forums.
That's an assertion that is neither demonstrated nor proven.
You dont agree? Ive seen a lot of dumb shits come in here... This dude is a bigger dufus then governmentworker777 who has mysteriously disappeared as soon as cybrsage appeared.
As I said, legally I find no reason not to create the new rights for the new type of civil union. Ethics and legality are not always the same thing.
Apparently the easiest way to make a thread explode is to use the argument, "because the Old Testament says so." Even though it doesn't really leave any room for discussion, people still feel the need to debate it.
The real question is why cybersage thinks anyone would be persuaded by that. I suspect he knows people don't accept religious arguments and that he is trolling.
As I said, the argument about human and animal does not follow since it is not possible to obtain informed consent from an animal.Correct. No more than a human and animal can ethically engage in a sexual relationship. I added the word sexual to your sentence since that is the subject we are discussing..
On what basis do you say it is unethical. Unethical would imply that it results in some harm. In this case neither party is harmed and both desire the act. It is only distasteful to some outside observers who are not truely harmed in any way.Legally or ethically? Legally, yes. Ethically, no..
Your analogy is faulty, since alcoholism is defined as a state at which the consumption of alcohol and the cravings for alcohol interfere and cause harm to self or others. Sure humans are born with receptors that respond to alcohol but intoxication is not the disease.No. You have some strange views. People are born with the predisposition towards alcoholism. If a person born this way begins to drink at all, they will become an alcoholic. Your view is that this person SHOULD be an alcoholic, otherwise they are denying their nature. That is stupid.
We expect people to deny their nature all the time. That is a requirement for any society to exist. Saying it is not is silly..
Your ethical view is not more important than my ethical view. The reason you say it is more important is because it is YOUR view..
You put extreme limitations on the discussion. Why not limit it to two, mutually consenting mature opposite sex adults isntead? It is not much more limiting then the limits you placed on it..
As I said, legally I find no reason not to create the new rights for the new type of civil union. Ethics and legality are not always the same thing.
Apparently the easiest way to make a thread explode is to use the argument, "because the Old Testament says so." Even though it doesn't really leave any room for discussion, people still feel the need to debate it.
The real question is why cybersage thinks anyone would be persuaded by that. I suspect he knows people don't accept religious arguments and that he is trolling.
I havent' read the whole thread, but if he actually made that argument I'm hoping he also doesn't shave his beard or ever wear clothing woven of two types of material, as both those are found in Leviticus right by the anti gay passages.
There's actually legal precedence against having a separate civil union. Brown v. The Board of Education which found that separate but equal is inherently not equal.
As I said, the argument about human and animal does not follow since it is not possible to obtain informed consent from an animal.
On what basis do you say it is unethical. Unethical would imply that it results in some harm. In this case neither party is harmed and both desire the act. It is only distasteful to some outside observers who are not truely harmed in any way.
Your analogy is faulty, since alcoholism is defined as a state at which the consumption of alcohol and the cravings for alcohol interfere and cause harm to self or others. Sure humans are born with receptors that respond to alcohol but intoxication is not the disease.
Humans are predisposed to be attracted to a certain sex, as long as engaging in a sexual relationship with that sex does not harm self or others it is not pathologic. Again I will say God made them gay, God wants them to be happy, so God wants them to find a sexual partner that they will be attracted to.
To paraphrase a line from Ghandi- Christ loves gays, christians do not.
Assigning a value statement about one persons views is rediculous. Your views are such that we should limit the "liberty and the persuit of happiness" on a minority and mine is that we should not.
Because the opposite sex part is not required for consent.
These arent new rights they are the "inaliable rights" of all people that we hold "self evident"
You guys realize you are getting trolled endlessly, right?
BoT: both of these morons are probably done as far as the primary is concerned, but time will tell.....
Trolling is supposed to be where you invest a tiny amount of effort to get an exaggerated response out of people. Our good friend cybrsage seems to be putting in just about as much effort as any other poster in this, so if he's trolling he's doing a pretty bad job. I think instead it's that he just likes to argue.
If I had more time I think i'd put together a timeline of these posts, get an idea for how much time he spent today posting his crap. I'm thinking today alone he probably invested like 12-15 hours on these forums.
dude is amazing. He just knows so much about the Torah that he does not have to waste any time looking it up,so he spends all his time posting about it.
Under the influence of or directly provided by God? Who made the claim they were under that guidance or directly provided the information by God? What reason is there to conclude they were actually being guided by and/or in communication with God?
The more man interprets and rationalizes, the more he becomes the master of and responsible for what that interpretation contains.
Again, those things... however "clear" they are... are not necessarily from God. There is nothing but heresay and the beliefs of those who supposedly heard God to serve as the basis of that claim.
I asked who provided the information. You said God. I then asked "according to what or to whom". In other words, who or what said that God provided the information and why should we conclude they are correct?
Those rules, again, were supposedly said by God to someone who wrote them down. Without a logical reason, let alone proof, that demonstrates this person was actually spoken to by God there is no reason to conclude those rules are actually what God wants us to do (or not do).
Perhaps, but what makes as much if not more sense is that God.. assuming he actually provided those rules.. provided the rules not as ones that are set in stone and never to be changed, but as ones essential to the initial development of a society that didn't before have rules for sustainable long-term growth; rules that society could alter and/or discard as society grows, learns, and matures. Such an explanation also makes a lot of sense if God gave us free will, as most religions claim.
.. and as you are just as likely to eventually be.
The degree of perfection with which something is taught depends on the degree to which something is perfectly understood by the teacher. Basic math and communication... being concepts easily within our ability to understand because they are easy to demonstrate as true or false... can be perfectly taught because they can be perfectly understood. Other things, like what God supposedly said, cannot be perfectly understood so they cannot be perfectly taught.
Depends on the portion under discussion. The Law was directly provided. The Torah records that God initially started out telling all the people everything, but after giving the Ten Commandments, the people begged Moses to go and talk to God for them. God said sure.
Other portions were God inspired. If the person started to get it wrong, God would have corrected them prior to the info being passed along.
For the interpretation, correct. For the original words, no.
Correct, which is why it is taken on faith. Faith is belief without proof. You have a faith based belief that God did not provide this info.
Ah, ok. Again, depends on the section, but all the writers say either God told them directly or that God inspired them. This can be found in the Tanakh, the Bible.
Look at it like this. Suppose I say that Stephen Hawking said "you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory." You could ask me who provided that info. I would say Hawking did. You could say according to what or to whom and I would reply with Hawking himself did in his book "A Brief History of Time".
On what basis do you claim there is no logical reason to believe the rules were created by God? Proof, sure, you are correct.
Some rules are adaptable, but those rules tell us they are. The sexual morality rules are not such rules. Free will gives us the power to decide if we will follow the rules or not follow them.
Basically, you are saying to follow the rules you personally agree with, but the rules you personally do not agree with should not be followed. That creates anarchy.
Nope. However, if it ever is, I will reassess as that time.
Very true. The level of understanding required to teach rules is pretty law. You can pretty much simply memorize them and you got it. Some of the rules say why they are there, some do not. No rule needs to have a reason for it in order to successfully follow it (provided it is not super vague like many laws today are written).
That is what is so amazing about the Torah. It has many levels of wisdom to the words. The basic level is easy to understand and to learn. If you want to simply follow the rules because God said so...that is good enough. If you want to find deeper meaning, that requires more study. At a certain point, there will be disagreements and differing schools of thought. That is fine, since all agree on the basic, first level of understanding.
All of that depends on someone actually being spoken to by God... which has not been demonstrated logically, much less factually.
Of course they say that... but is that, factually, what happened?
To which I would ask the same question: why should we conclude they're correct?
According to you... but, again, what logical reason or proof is there to conclude that you are an authority on the true wishes of God?
No, I'm saying that society can and does decide, as it matures, what rules to keep, what rules to discard, and what rules to change. As we as a species gain knowledge, about ourselves and our world and our society, we come to realize and know that certain things are not in our best interests. That leads to rules we set for ourselves.
I am always reassessing my beliefs and opinions.
No more amazing than the fact that in a room of 50 people you will have 50 different points of view.