Religious teaching in Education

[Edric O]

Ah, Dante, I didn't expect you to reply so quickly! I must warn you in advance that I will probably not be able to respond until this coming weekend, due to an important exam that I must prepare for.

However, I will say one thing now: If you care about ecosystems, about the diversity of Life, then you should be just as focused on Homo sapiens as I am. We are the only thing that can carry Life out of this gravity well and across the galaxy. We are essential for the survival of Life after the death of our Sun. Given the complete lack of evidence of life elsewhere in the universe, you can see just how important we are. We can make the difference between having ecosystems on a single planet or having them on a million planets.

If the Earth were a single organism, Homo sapiens would be its reproductive organ (yes, that is meant to evoke a funny image). Like a flower or fruit on a plant, we are expensive. We suck up an enormous amount of resources from our host "organism". But it's worth it. Because we alone can scatter its seeds across the universe.

[ErasOmnius]

Dante, do you believe that the Earth creates the trait of homosexuality because it believes that the eco-system is over-populated? Sorry to give you soggy vegetables, but I know they are really not that soggy. Actually, it will be good for you to finally and unequivocally state what you believe. That matter is all that exists, and the universe is only matter. Then you can finally decide if it's something that you really want to believe in. That human-kind is simply just matter, and emotions are nothing more than re-inforced brain patterns where blood vessels have sculpted channels through our cranial matter.

Holes exist in Creation Science. Holes exist in Evolutionary Science. as Edric has said, the majority of humanity believes in a combination thereof, a Deistic Evolution of some sorts. We are all just simply believing whatever we believe in -- in Faith. You may choose to believe that an earthquake is nothing more than the crumbling of built up matter, destroyed by the moving of a crustal plate. The children being crushed in said earthquake are nothing more than animated carbon molecules. The grief expressed is simply the loss of familiarity of a reinforced behavioral pattern. Is this true?

But you have brought up interesting points in your last post. Why are you not typical of most homosexuals? Most atheists? Most scientists?

[Dante]

Because most people aren't moral relativists. Most people believe that there are things that are 'right' and things that are 'wrong,' and that these rights and wrongs are universal. I do not believe this. That leaves people who disagree with me open to making an error: that moral relativism is a trait of scientists, atheists or homosexuals. It is not.

. You may choose to believe that an earthquake is nothing more than the crumbling of built up matter, destroyed by the moving of a crustal plate. The children being crushed in said earthquake are nothing more than animated carbon molecules. The grief expressed is simply the loss of familiarity of a reinforced behavioral pattern. Is this true?

If you bothered to read my posts at all you'd already know the answer to that, chowderhead.

Actually, it will be good for you to finally and unequivocally state what you believe. That matter is all that exists, and the universe is only matter. Then you can finally decide if it's something that you really want to believe in. That human-kind is simply just matter, and emotions are nothing more than re-inforced brain patterns where blood vessels have sculpted channels through our cranial matter.

You don't understand a single thing I write, do you? I might as well just bork bork du'falalalala ping yakkie yakkie gorp for all the difference it makes. You don't understand biology, you don't understand physics, you frequently lose your grasp on English grammar, what hope can you possibly have of comprehending anything I say?

Also, get this through your skull, because this is not the first time I've said it: I am not here to justify what I believe to mentally retarded pinheads like you. That you've managed to misconstrue the paragraphs I've already written is just further evidence that attempting to do so would be a waste of time and effort on my part.

Dante, do you believe that the Earth creates the trait of homosexuality because it believes that the eco-system is over-populated?

No.

Also, "the Earth creates," "it believes" ? What are you, twelve?

[athanasios]

.. due to an important exam that I must prepare for.

Good luck.

Given the complete lack of evidence of life elsewhere in the universe, ...

For how long? NASA'S Kepler Mission Discovers Its First Rocky Planet

ErasOmnius: The is no 'Creation Science' or 'Evolution Science'. Science is ONE.

[Lord J]

Firstly I should apologize if none of this makes sense. I've just had a wee bit o' the Irish answer to ambrosia and therefore am a bit tipsy :D

Edric:

Firstly, I am not an atheist, as I have stated many times before, I am an agnostic. I simply cannot release my belief in a higher power of some sort, no matter how hard I try. That being said, I can easily express disbelief in the Christian deity, mostly because of a simple matter of philosophical disagreement. I disagree with the very basic Christian perspectives regarding human behavior. As everything Christian arises from those perspectives, I disagree with the entire religious perspective.

Now that my diatribe is completed, I can move on to the meat of your points. I think that, ultimately, you are more knowledgeable regarding your religion than I am. This is no surprise to me, and the fact that you have answers to some of my generalizations only goes to prove how shaky the Christian perspective really is. A strong scientific theory requires that certain requirements be met. In this case, I would suggest that Christianity lacks falsifiability in that there are doctrines that account for many different criticisms.

I'll put it this way. In the religious perspectives in which I was raised, hell was universally BAD. "Burning vats of sewage", to quote the visualizations of one interesting individual. I was raised to believe in free will, and that our choices resulted in our success or failure in our city on the hill. Of course, this reveals a major problem in Christianity; who's right? The Orthodox, who believe, (sorry) whatever you believe, the Pentecostals who believe that a woman who wears makeup is the same as a whore, the Catholics who believe(d?) that one could buy ones way into heaven, or the followers of Eras's perspective, that seem to believe that the Jews should be emulated in every way, except praise Jesus, let's rip on the gays and simple biology?

Yes Eras, you fail simple biology. Just... stop.

And that brings me to another point, Edric. When does mild prejudice against someone become active persecution? Is there a point in time where (and I was raised in the South, btw) using a racial epithet to a minority's face in dismissal is justified, but burning churches, beating, and lynching people is wrong? No. No, because in our society, individual diversity is valued and hateful behavior is not.

Dante, I'm not sure, but I suspect that the majority atheists and agnostics are not moralistically relative in their daily behavior. Philosophically, I find morals to be meaningful only in terms of law and religion, which have very little to do with a science of real human behavior. But in real life, no, I don't steal, murder, lie or cheat. Ever.

And here is the misconception of your tirade against SandChigger, Edric, you talk about religion as a force in the environment that shapes behavior, but you don't look at the broader picture. There is a system. A tendency within human psychology. It is simple; we tend to approach those things that make us feel good or are associated with things that make us feel good, and we avoid those things that make us feel bad. Now, granted, this is a simplification, it's much more relativistic, and there are biological aspects that this doesn't cover, but to say that "religion" causes changes in human behavior is like saying that rotting bodies produce larva, or that there is fire inside of dried twigs, or that rags produce rats. It's a shockingly simplified concept of reality that denotes a very skewed perspective of reality. In fact, a very ignorant view of reality.

[ErasOmnius]

Firstly, I am not an atheist, as I have stated many times before, I am an agnostic. I simply cannot release my belief in a higher power of some sort, no matter how hard I try.

Why is that? Is belief in a higher power a 'safety crutch', or there are holes in your belief of Evolution?

That being said, I can easily express disbelief in the Christian deity, mostly because of a simple matter of philosophical disagreement. I disagree with the very basic Christian perspectives regarding human behavior. As everything Christian arises from those perspectives, I disagree with the entire religious perspective.

It is the most wondrous and positive of all of the beliefs, but it requires the greatest sacrifice. That's why I find that most people like to at least keep Jesus 'hanging around'. Who doesn't want the creator of the universe to be their big brother?

I'll put it this way. In the religious perspectives in which I was raised, hell was universally BAD. "Burning vats of sewage", to quote the visualizations of one interesting individual. I was raised to believe in free will, and that our choices resulted in our success or failure in our city on the hill. Of course, this reveals a major problem in Christianity; who's right? The Orthodox, who believe, (sorry) whatever you believe, the Pentecostals who believe that a woman who wears makeup is the same as a whore, the Catholics who believe(d?) that one could buy ones way into heaven, or the followers of Eras's perspective, that seem to believe that the Jews should be emulated in every way, except praise Jesus, let's rip on the gays and simple biology?

Yes Eras, you fail simple biology. Just... stop.

Having been raised both Orthodox and Catholic at different parts of my life, I'll tell you this. The Orthodox say, 'Fall in line to all authority'. Catholic teaching is, 'Do good, but the Holy Spirit has no power to change people.'

I don't understand why you would say that I failed simple biology. That's why I';m constantly having to remind you and others of my 2 degrees, and my wife's 2 degrees. I have listened to her talk about Psychology ad infintum. She stills follows it intensely, and is part-time volunteer contributor to Dr James Dobson's Focus on the Family.

I guess that we're just not that 'enlightened' as you and others.

In the area of reproduction, I know that my sperm are going to live 3-5 days inside of a woman's uterus. I know that if she is on the post-decidual phase of her uterine cycle, then one of my sperm is going to find her egg that is sitting in the fallopian tube waiting for it, and a new human will be created. I don't purposely leave myself ignorant about basic human anatomy, then go forcing my woman off to an abortion clinic to dispose of the already created human. Who is failing simple biology?

I also know something about venereal disease. Once again, myself and others have to clean up the youth of Metro Detroit, and all of their VDs they get from believing the lies of Evolution. Them believing they are nothing more than slime+time. That is the galling point of it all. You can't even admit anything resembling the truth. That sex outside of the commitment of marriage, results in a greater chance of getting VD

No, because in our society, individual diversity is valued and hateful behavior is not.

Individual diversity is valued, but not sexual deviancy. It is not valued. There is no successful society that has ever valued it at all. The Powers of America hooking the 'sexual deviancy train' on the backs of the Hispanics, African-Americans, and Native Americans civil rights movement, is a sickening reproach on our culture.

Sadly, in these discussions, we have to constantly 'dance around reality'. I try to constantly set benchmarks as to ANY differences that exists between the religious, especially Christian; and the non-religious. We have to constantly pretend that we live in some 'fantasy world' where all is right with society.

Do you know how many people will have to be turned away tonight at the Shelter? Do you have a clue how many people come in with venereal diseases? Look up the statistics. They are real people who have been taught by your precious public school system that 'zillion and zillions' of years ago, you shared an ancestor with an ape. Zillions of years before that, you had an ancestor that crawled out of the salty sea. But nothing could ever be mentioned that youngsters are beholdened and have to answer to a God. "We must never teach them that".

Because Someone has made porn one of the largest industries in the world.

Just click on a few porn sites, and that is all one has to know about 'our society'. Women being tied up and whipped by other women. Men being pee'd on by other men and women. A woman being voluntarily ganged raped by 4 men. Lord J, you seriously don't see ANY difference between the morals of the religious and the non-religious?

Everybody should say what they want to say, and stop 'beating around the bush'. If Evolution gives you the right to have sex with whomever you want, then just say it. If a building crashing down on someone means nothing, but the falling of a few concrete molecules onto some carbon molecules, then so be it.

Dante, you posted something about Wolf volunteering for 8 years. I congratulate him. What about you?

[Lord J]

Eras: No holes in my perspective in the theory of natural selection. A "God" is not necessary for that. I know that I have experienced miraculous things, and it has built upon something that I think runs the edge of probability. Perhaps I am ridiculously lucky, or perhaps there is a higher power looking out for me. I don't know. That means I'm agnostic. Either way, I certainly have no need for a god as a safety crutch, just given the fact that I don't believe that any god, if it existed, would engage in permanent consequences for behavior. I would hope that, if god existed, he would be a master psychologist. Permanent consequences is just not good psychology.

Similarly, belief in the planet as "planning" or "thinking" is not good biology. Natural selection is blind. There is natural diversity that comes of genes and the physical environment, and sometimes things that are not "the best for the survival of the gene" are selected. Believe it or not, Eras, gay people actually have offspring. Both of my parents are gay (my father is in a committed relationship with another man, and my mother is in a committed relationship with a woman) and yet they were once married and, after severe difficulties, had me. Also, guess what Eras, I'm straight! That's right, I'm married to a beautiful, sexy woman who makes me incredibly happy. This suggests that the whole matter is very complex, and the reason you fail simple biology is that you don't take into account the simple fact that evolution is blind, that it makes mistakes. You fail because you have a skewed perspective of how natural selection works.

Oh yes, and James Dobson. Heh. Yeah, I know the name. :D :D :D

"Successful society" because the West is not successful at all. Of course, you're referring to the ancient Greeks (which your friend Ath has something to say about, no doubt), who were made slaves to the highly conservative Roman Republic, which became the Roman Empire, and later, the Holy Roman Catholic Church. And the Catholic Church is not successful at all. No. Although... they do still seem to like little boys....

I guess one of your degrees was not in history.

And now you're getting on the porn bandwagon. Porn was made an industry by capitalism. Early on, selling porn was illegal, obviously, so the Mafia produced it. Of course "voluntary" rape wasn't so voluntary at the time, everyone did what they did because of fear, and not because of payment, except, of course, the folks at the top.

And the interesting thing about the Mafia, particularly the Italians who are the most well known, is that they are good family people. In fact, it's a family business, killing, maiming, selling drugs, laundering money, whoring, etc. It's only in recent decades that the porn industry has become removed from the Mafia, and now actors work for money; they have protections and are members of unions. Yes, they do sexually depraved things for their money, and I cannot speak to psychological health, but the field is successful because family is no longer part of the equation.

And I bet, just bet, that if you had asked those mob bosses, they were good members of x church.

So does "Evolution" give one the right to have sex with whoever they want? No. Natural selection is a process, not a legal system. People have sex because it feels good, and it feels good because contacting genitalia in certain ways was selected by evolution. If you didn't like your genitals touched, you were less likely to reproduce, and therefore you were either raped or you died prior to reproduction. Either way, we like for our genitals to be touched because of natural selection.

[Dante]

Dante, you posted something about Wolf volunteering for 8 years. I congratulate him. What about you?

Let me ask you an equally relevant question. How long is a piece of string?

You've missed every point, failed to grasp every idea, it's like I'm talking to a machine that's been deliberately programmed to get things wrong. You're either ignorant on a frankly galactic scale or you're feigning such in order to get a rise out of the rest of us. Either way, you're not worth taking seriously.

[ErasOmnius]

Let me ask you an equally relevant question. How long is a piece of string?

You've missed every point, failed to grasp every idea, it's like I'm talking to a machine that's been deliberately programmed to get things wrong. You're either ignorant on a frankly galactic scale or you're feigning such in order to get a rise out of the rest of us. Either way, you're not worth taking seriously.

Not really Dante, but now, I fully understand you. You like to believe that we are just matter because it gives you the right to behave in any way that you see fit. But who would really like to live, let alone believe, in a universe, in that we are all simply just matter and molecules? No one. Because if we are all just matter and molecules then there is no love or joy. Just re-inforced brain patterns guided by the circulation of blood in those particular lobes of the brain. So, I finally get it.

Well Edric, you may as well LOCK this thread.

[Dante]

You've been telling yourself the same shit throughout this thread. No matter how many times I've disagreed, you've just kept on with the same old "you believe this, you believe that," claptrap. You are the last person who gets to tell me what I believe, worms for brains, because you have proven yourself incapable of understanding it even when I spoke about it.

If hyu ectually had a brain (ven vas it remoofd? Doz it shtill hurt?) Hyu vould know de followink:

> "The vay Hy see fit" iz a darn sight bettah dan hyu, und Hy act dot vay because Hy can jushtify it logically, at leasht in practical terms.

> Hy believe in a universe uf physical rules, und it's a vhole barrel uf fon.

> Love und joy shtill exisht in a godless vorld. Jusht because ve know how dey vork dozn't diminish vot dey iz.

> Dot hyu done a Hvi und ignored jusht about every point Hy deigned to throw at hyu.

> Dot hyu fail all de sciences und ven called out on it default to talkink about sex. Seriously, do hyu ever schtop talkink about sex?

Und if hyu tink Edric's gon to lock anyting before vritink hiz own reply (hyu may hef noticed, he shtill has a brain und iz capable uf rational thought und debate, someting vich iz quite beyond you feeble grasp), especially because hyu say anyting, hyu hef anodder tink comink. Vell, hyu might if hyu had a brain.

Hey, if hyu can't ectually tink at all, doz dot mean dot hyu might not exisht? Hy mean cogito ergo sum really only appliez to tinkink creatures, zo if hyu don't tink, hyu can't be sure hyu exisht.

Food for thought.

[ErasOmnius]

You've been telling yourself the same shit throughout this thread. No matter how many times I've disagreed, you've just kept on with the same old "you believe this, you believe that," claptrap. You are the last person who gets to tell me what I believe, worms for brains, because you have proven yourself incapable of understanding it even when I spoke about it.

If hyu ectually had a brain (ven vas it remoofd? Doz it shtill hurt?) Hyu vould know de followink:

> "The vay Hy see fit" iz a darn sight bettah dan hyu, und Hy act dot vay because Hy can jushtify it logically, at leasht in practical terms.

> Hy believe in a universe uf physical rules, und it's a vhole barrel uf fon.

> Love und joy shtill exisht in a godless vorld. Jusht because ve know how dey vork dozn't diminish vot dey iz.

> Dot hyu done a Hvi und ignored jusht about every point Hy deigned to throw at hyu.

> Dot hyu fail all de sciences und ven called out on it default to talkink about sex. Seriously, do hyu ever schtop talkink about sex?

Und if hyu tink Edric's gon to lock anyting before vritink hiz own reply (hyu may hef noticed, he shtill has a brain und iz capable uf rational thought und debate, someting vich iz quite beyond you feeble grasp), especially because hyu say anyting, hyu hef anodder tink comink. Vell, hyu might if hyu had a brain.

Hey, if hyu can't ectually tink at all, doz dot mean dot hyu might not exisht? Hy mean cogito ergo sum really only appliez to tinkink creatures, zo if hyu don't tink, hyu can't be sure hyu exisht.

Food for thought.

How clever. Your usual 25 minutes of tirade when you are replying to me. Pretend you are replying to someone else Dante, then maybe the debate can advance somewhat. Sadly, your discourse with me has devolved into you putting me down, and thinking you're clever. I think you cling to Evolution, and refuse to look at any holes in its' Theory, because it fits your world-view and life-style.

Why would I ever want to stop talking about MY strongest argument? Why would a monogamous, married, heterosexual, father of four, want to to stop talking about sex? My marriage lifestyle is THE successful life-style of History. Every other life-style has been proven to be a failure. Why would I not want to focus on it, dwell on it, talk about it, ad infinitum? You know. Marry (for love, and to keep VD out of the body to have the strongest offspring and life), Reproduce (create children to take of myself and society when I am too old to do so). This cycle that has worked for all of history.

Let us all talk about beliefs in Christianity...

The concept of the 1st being of the Trinity, the Father, being our Father, after repentance. The concept of the 2nd being of the Trinity, the Son, being our older brother, after repentence. These 2 concepts have sustained marytrs in the Coliseum, and religious dissidents in jail for years. Do you think that Marx was wrong when he said that religion was like the drug opium, and that the aboiliton of religion is a good thing?

[Dante]

No, lets not talk about that. Lets talk about how saying "there are holes in this theory" isn't the same as saying "the hole in this theory is that it says X when in fact the evidence points more strongly in favour of Y, and I have papers A, B and C to prove it." That's how science works, stupid, and if you can't get it right then your arguments have as much weight as a small pile of nothing.

Ho, hyu talk about sex becaus it'z ectually an attempt to make a point? Hyu may vant to clarify dot in foture, all dese months it's looked zo moch like a sad, repressed leedle man livink vicariously through vords. Especially de obsession vit pornography. Ho yas, Hy remember you "I think that the debate is always lowered when you want to focus on the one or two homosexual murders, for example;, and not the rampancy of gay porno, for example" line. Hyu vants to talk about sex more dan de human condition, metinks. Vonder vy?

[Lord J]

> Dot hyu done a Hvi und ignored jusht about every point Hy deigned to throw at hyu.

It's funny cause it's true.

That's sad, eras, if sex is your strongest argument. Of all of the wonderful, varied aspects of religion, and your argument is based on the most physical, carnal aspect. No elaborate arguments about love and peace, no, it's just about how much better you are than Dante because of what you stick it in.

[athanasios]

Please can you stick to the theme of the thread?

[ErasOmnius]

Please can you stick to the theme of the thread?

What are you trying to say? I am trying to defend religion against people who think that the Christian religion of the Bible should be eliminated.

Lord J. Are you reading what I am writing? Or are you stuck in 'make fun of Jesus' mode. Sex is not my strongest argument. Love is. The act of sex is simply an expression of my love for my wife. If we create another human being, then we are acting like our Creator, in creating life--another eternal human being. I contrast that with everything else. Sex that occurs in bathrooms. Sex that occurs in mock dungeons, where people torture and whip each other. Sex anywhere, whenever. So when you say that you support atheism, you are saying that you support each and every human being 'being their own God'. Doing whatever they want, as long as the other person 'so-called' consents.

So I think it is good to teach religion to one's children, and at Church, so that children know there are sexual parameters. That they won't get VD, and have self-esteem.

As far as Peace goes, there will never be Peace on this Earth until the Son returns. I gave up 9 years ago believing that any kind of utopia could ever be created through any type of socialism, and any type of 'ism'. This world was given to the Devil by Adam, 6000 years ago, and he's been running the Show pretty much since then. Thousands will die of hunger this week. If God was in control of this world--then they wouldn't be dying. Children wouldn't be working in sweatshops, mothers wouldn't be sifting through garbage piles for food. But the misery continues, just as it has for the last six millenia.

Our teens will continue to go the Middle East, to put their lives on the line for the sheikhs and oil barons. Some will come back maimed, some will never come back. One man will send 150,000 teens/twenties to Iraq; the next man will claim he is better, and simply move them 700 miles eastward to Afghanistan.

So I think it's good to teach religion to children to behave properly, and I think that respect for God is a true and good parameter to help them in that area.

[Lord J]

You said it, I didn't:

Why would I ever want to stop talking about MY strongest argument? Why would a monogamous, married, heterosexual, father of four, want to to stop talking about sex?

I'm not "making fun of Jesus", I'm making fun of you. Except, like most religious types, you can't seem to be capable of telling the difference. I'm quite sure that if I am wrong, and Jesus does exist, he is using me, Dante, and every other voice on this forum in an attempt to show you how wrong you are.

Here's a question for you, Eras, what would happen with your relationship with your wife if there was a freak accident and she lost her ability to perform sexually? What if she lost the ability to have children? Would you continue to feel love for her, or does she only have meaning for you because of the children you can produce?

This is very revealing, Eras, because I think we're finally getting down to the source of your psychosis. It doesn't surprise me that you cannot conceive a homosexual relationship as one based on love, because you cannot separate the concept of love from sex. Tell me, how was your relationship with your father as a child?

Just kidding, I don't really care. Here's my point, though. The way you're coming across to me and everyone else that I've seen comment on your behavior, is that you are obsessed with homosexuality. For whatever reason, it seems that you are incapable of separating the philosophy of atheism, the reality of biology, and the act of male gay sex. If you want to be taken seriously, you really need to find a different angle, because you're not convincing anyone here.

Unless, that is, you're trying to convince us that you are obsessed with male gay sex... ;)

Anyway, since no one appears to be rising to the occasion, what does religion teach us about love? Part of what I have been taught in my adulthood, regarding Christianity, is that we are to love our neighbors. That seems all well and good, so long as our neighbors think like us. How exactly does Christianity address this apparent failing that can be accounted for by ingroup-outgroup social psychological theory?

What if children were taught the basics of psychology and science instead of religion? That people can be impulsive, addictive, and prone to the use of aversive conditioning; but that they can also love, and learn, and communicate? That diversity is beautiful and we are all part of an exclusive in-group? That we are the masters of our destiny, and the universe is ours?

[ErasOmnius]

You said it, I didn't:

I'm not "making fun of Jesus", I'm making fun of you. Except, like most religious types, you can't seem to be capable of telling the difference. I'm quite sure that if I am wrong, and Jesus does exist, he is using me, Dante, and every other voice on this forum in an attempt to show you how wrong you are.

Here's a question for you, Eras, what would happen with your relationship with your wife if there was a freak accident and she lost her ability to perform sexually? What if she lost the ability to have children? Would you continue to feel love for her, or does she only have meaning for you because of the children you can produce?

If she could not perform sexually, I would be absolutely fine with the situation. When I was training to be a minister back in the 1980s in my youth, I was celibate. I understand the thought process that goes into such a life-style. My wife has lost the ability to have children -- this is a recent diagnosis, the doctors are confirming Early Menopause. When I wrote the above quote about creating another individual during sex, I was commenting if the doctors do not render her Early Menopause syndrome as final.

Dude, I am a business professional who co-owns a small Marketing firm. I know that you have the picture of me beating my wife, living like Fred Flintstone. But actually, everyone likes me. My secretaries, male and female, know I'm not going to 'ask for a massage'; or try to feel superior by paying them an unfair wage, or don't give them proper evaluations.

This is very revealing, Eras, because I think we're finally getting down to the source of your psychosis.

You sound like someone I know. Someone I have been married to for 20 years. Not about this topic, but about such topics if... I don't want to exercise on a specific day, or guide the kids into doing their chores. My wife uses that word - psychosis.

It doesn't surprise me that you cannot conceive a homosexual relationship as one based on love, because you cannot separate the concept of love from sex.

Why would I want to separate love from sex? Why would I want to be weak? Why would I want to degrade this body that God gave to me? No cigarettes ever, no alcohol in the last 25 years. The constant exercise, constant health food. I consider, so does God, my body the temple of the Holy Spirit.

Tell me, how was your relationship with your father as a child?

Good. He was a Track Coach. He coached my brothers and I through every grade of Track and Field up at the Middle and High Schools. Our goal was to train for the ultimate event -- The Marathon (based on the ancient Greek event). My older brother was the best, he was able to place on the US Olympic Team in 1972 -- but he was not good enough to go to the Games.

Just kidding, I don't really care. Here's my point, though. The way you're coming across to me and everyone else that I've seen comment on your behavior, is that you are obsessed with homosexuality. For whatever reason, it seems that you are incapable of separating the philosophy of atheism, the reality of biology, and the act of male gay sex. If you want to be taken seriously, you really need to find a different angle, because you're not convincing anyone here.

Unless, that is, you're trying to convince us that you are obsessed with male gay sex... ;)

No. But I am interested in the opinions of Dante. As I have said before, his candor and openness is great -- when he shares his point of view. His sharing of his view of the Destruction Event and the People Dying is fantastic in its' raw view of Evolution. His mentioning of the Worm Burrowing in the Child's Eye -- who else shares such things on a Forum? Who else is so bold and honest about what Evolution is? Everyone else just beats around the bush. And he is a good writer. When he turns, the Devil will have a powerful enemy.

[Dante]

If I was religious I would be a firebrand. No doing anything by half measure, no way. I'd probably be a Catholic. I mean if you're god's chosen people you might as well show it off, right? The power, the pomp, the politics, the blithe attitude towards corruption and self interest, but at the same time such tradition, such formality! The artwork, the architecture, the observatory, and they don't even deny evolution. Awesome.

Sadly, I have a bit more sense than that. My sense for truth does rather overpower my flair for the dramatic. Such a shame.

Eracist... *sigh,* must you keep getting things wrong? I mean it's not as if this is complicated. A nuclear bomb is not a view of evolution except in terms so broad as to be meaningless. When I touched on suffering and people dying in hovels it was a comment on aesthetics, not ancestry. And must you keep capitalising everything? "Worm Burrowing in the Child's Eye," none of those things needed to be capitalised.

You've been ignoring various points of argument for some time now (word of advice: pretending problems don't exist doesn't make them go away), so I'll slow down and deliver bitesize mini-points until you're ready for solid food, ok?

Question 1: Do you actually understand evolution by natural selection?

Lord J: I get the feeling that your question wasn't addressed to me, but since eracist failed to respond (are we surprised? We are not)...

I think that most organised religions really do teach their followers to love everyone, it's just that their definition of "love" is a bit twisted and rather different from ours. Many are believers in "tough love." The kind that will hurt someone "for their own good." A person who could murder ten others, stand up in court and say "I was righteous, I may have killed their bodies but I saved their souls forever."

They call it love, because they care about our souls. I call it lunacy, because they've lost their grip on reality and long ago plunged into the fathomless chasm of insanity.

[Edric O]

Anyway, since no one appears to be rising to the occasion, what does religion teach us about love? Part of what I have been taught in my adulthood, regarding Christianity, is that we are to love our neighbors. That seems all well and good, so long as our neighbors think like us. How exactly does Christianity address this apparent failing that can be accounted for by ingroup-outgroup social psychological theory?

I will let Jesus answer this question:

"But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again. Do to others as you would have them do to you. If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return."

-- Luke 6:27-35

[ErasOmnius]

Of course, instead of giving them religious education; we could have it play out the way it is basically is right now.

Children play videogames from age 10-17 using actual weaponry from current wars. Unemployment is high upon leaving high school.

The leads to the only hope that graduating teens have joining the military, and going over to the fields of battle and occupation. The kids are partially trained--having used the weaponry on the computers and TV screens.

[athanasios]

It is getting even worse:

http://soccernews.bigsoccer.com/photo/0dfTh1Y21MfH3?q=Seoul

Preparing MEAT for the next WW!

[ErasOmnius]

Yeah with the debt burden of The West; and China and the Middle East holding the bonds -- soon our armed services are going to be merceneries. Oh, I forgot, the king of Arabia let it slip during Wikileaks that he wanted Iran attacked, I guess it's already happening.

[Gruntlord6]

Seems you didn't read my post. How will it be honest when there will always be a thousand excuses?

More honest then claiming its religious.

[Spectral Paladin]

Hello guys,

I haven't been on this forum for ages and I 'm afraid I haven't read this entire topic yet. Nevertheless, while reading the first pages I noticed a lot of talk about us needing to be compassionate and altruist and whether religion accomplishes that or we don't need it. And the first thing that jumped to my mind, in particular since I have just read a few Nietzche books and his genealogy of morals was; Why? Why exactly are we supposed to be compassionate and altruist and wish for homeless shelters? No Dante; rightness is not rightness.

I figured I 'll toss this out. Hopefully more will come should I get the chance to delve into this forum's treasures again.

[ErasOmnius]

Hello guys,

I haven't been on this forum for ages and I 'm afraid I haven't read this entire topic yet. Nevertheless, while reading the first pages I noticed a lot of talk about us needing to be compassionate and altruist and whether religion accomplishes that or we don't need it. And the first thing that jumped to my mind, in particular since I have just read a few Nietzsche books and his genealogy of morals was; Why? Why exactly are we supposed to be compassionate and altruist and wish for homeless shelters? No Dante; rightness is not rightness.

I figured I 'll toss this out. Hopefully more will come should I get the chance to delve into this forum's treasures again.

One Reason:

Men become addicted to vices. These vices cause them to squandor their money on goods and services that are not the basic necessities of life. If it goes on too long, or for too deep; they, or their whole family, may end up in a homeless shelter.

Another:

Homes, goods, and Property bought on loans with Annually compounded interest can add up to a great deal of additional money every year. The Banks that hold these loans hold the people who have borrowed in literal serfdom.

For example, even at a 'good' interest rate of 5% annually, the average home in North America costing $200k with a $180k loan, still generates $9k in Interest. This is too much money for the downtrodden consumer, so the family defaults, and can end up in a homeless shelter.

Shelters are the last safety net before families fall into ruin. Obviously, as someone who has volunteered in homeless shelters for years, it is my strong belief that Christian religious shelters operate the best and most efficient. Once people are able to get 'back on their feet', they are guided back into the world, hopefully as contributing people.

As a believer in realisitic solutions for society, I am pro-active in today's answers to society's problems. The fact of the matter is that many homeless people eventually commit crimes if they are not reached, helped, and brought back into society. The cost of arresting them, trying them, and jailing them; runs in to the tens of thousands of dollars every year per person -- so that is very cost prohibitive. And I know that we don't want to shoot them, like Hitler did--so homeless shelters perform a valuable and necessary function.

As far as Nietzsche goes, he was a deranged madman. Among Italian people, he is most well remembered as the horse-hugger of Torino. This is when he had his mental breakdown in the 1880s. The poor guy must have seen a lot of bad medical situations when he was a medic in the Prusso-German Army in the war against France. It must have affected him badly for him to produce such twisted writings.