Havazn
Member
+39|6934|van.ca

puckmercury wrote:

Havazn wrote:

If you are blindly following someone's orders, is that really freewill?
GOD no ... pun intended.  I totally agree with and support thinking for yourself.  It has been my experience that the most uber Christian and "moral" individuals are usually the most mindless and hypocritical.  Even accepting that the basis for most modern day laws were spoon fed interpretations of King Solomon or other excerpts from the bible, we CHOSE to accept those.  And ultimately, the bible was in fact written by man, no matter how anyone tries to word it.  I say this as a Christian, mind you, just not a mindless one who subscribes to some prewritten dogma.

Now, to apply some of these notions of thinking for one's self.  Taking a step back from these "sacred" documents to apply some secular thinking, they truly are based on common sense and general clear thinking with a few religiously specific examples.  Take the 10 commandments.  Don't kill anyone, don't screw your neighbor's wife, don't take his stuff ... pretty common sense things here.  Nevermind the fact that they are supposedly handed down by God to Moses ... these are a solid moral ground regardless of their genesis.

Havazn wrote:

If you are blindly following someone's orders, is that really freewill?
Absolutely not, which is why I have such a problem with the more religious individuals I come accross.  They have a common thread of accepting what they are told ... by anyone purported by their parents to be reputable.  It's a self perpetuating system of ignorance.  No one thinks for themselves except for a select few.  This select few then dictates what is the "correct" interpretation of these documents and how they apply to modern day.  The only extension of these persons are other individuals named by them.  Seriously.
I like your answers and its refreshing to know that there are some rational minds out there. I am not saying religion is irrational, just some of the people who follow it are.

Regarding your common sense statment though, I guess what I mean is that even these basic concepts become a more philisophical debate because we have to ask ourselves "What makes us believe 'dont kill anyone' is a bad thing" -- Disclaimer -- I don't think it is a good thing, im just using it as an example --.
Volatile
Member
+252|6945|Sextupling in Empire

Homosexuality = natures solution to overcrowding.
Havazn
Member
+39|6934|van.ca

Volatile_Squirrel wrote:

Homosexuality = natures solution to overcrowding.
Perhaps this is the case, however it is no solution since the majority of people are straight. Overcrowding will continue until a major shift in the ecological balance is made.
<[onex]>Headstone
Member
+102|6942|New York

Havazn wrote:

Volatile_Squirrel wrote:

Homosexuality = natures solution to overcrowding.
Perhaps this is the case, however it is no solution since the majority of people are straight. Overcrowding will continue until a major shift in the ecological balance is made.
That and a change in beliefs is reached. in most cultures(third world) its a bad thing not to have MANY children. Then the rest of the world has to pay for it. Kind of sucks dont it?
Xietsu
Banned
+50|6797

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Well, using your logic, God created a special way for gays to procreate - It's called surrogate mothers.
Regardless, the focus should be on the predispositions in attitude that genetic tendencies provide for those who often sway to a sexual orientation of homosexuality. To affix a negative title upon such a matter of recreational preference is to be petty, suppositional, foolhardy, and downright FUCKING STUPID.

(P.S. CAST YO' VOTES NEG[RO]S! [p.s. I'm not referencing this thread {in this major "P.S." |as identified by its being capitalized /the new form of denoting shades of significance behind post scripts|\}.])

(P.S.#2. OHMUHGAW-EIYOOZ'DKNOOKAIRUHKTEURSAZZSUBPAIRENTHEHTIKKUHLS [p.s.#2. {modern refinement of} phonetics {--by teh troo one and only--} for the win, froozles])

Last edited by Xietsu (2006-06-30 04:09:13)

Havazn
Member
+39|6934|van.ca

<[onex]>Headstone wrote:

Havazn wrote:

Volatile_Squirrel wrote:

Homosexuality = natures solution to overcrowding.
Perhaps this is the case, however it is no solution since the majority of people are straight. Overcrowding will continue until a major shift in the ecological balance is made.
That and a change in beliefs is reached. in most cultures(third world) its a bad thing not to have MANY children. Then the rest of the world has to pay for it. Kind of sucks dont it?
Not really. Simply because that's what nature intended all life to do. Procreate to no end. With other species, there are checks and balances that hold the level of the population in place. However, since we are the top of our food chain, we have no natural enemies besides ourselves. Thus, overcrowding takes place. Now if more people/nations helped to develop third world countries, they wouldn't need the mentality to have many children. It's not by choice that they pump out kids, its because the mortality rate is so high that they need to have more children to balance it out. To ensure that more live. Its a messed up scale but its true. Besides, the more minds that have the opportunity to contribute on a global scale, the better off mankind will be.
JaMDuDe
Member
+69|7017
Homosexuality = to stop overcrowding isnt very logical. Homosexuals have been around in every population even when places arent overcrowded. Theyve been around even when the population needs more people. I dont think "nature" would have stopped 10% of a community from reproducing when they need more people to survive.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard