Gay Penguins discovered in aquarium

[Sammie]

Originally posted by CaramonLS+Jan 1 2005, 08:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CaramonLS @ Jan 1 2005, 08:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Sammie@Jan 2 2005, 02:14 AM
This discussion is deteriorating is nonsense and personal attacks rather than an honest discussion. Are you loosing the argument or just your cool?

Stop going "christian overlord of Morality" on us and we can resume this.[/b][/quote]
What's this "christian overlord of Morality" stuff? I've been talking common sense stuff here. That's the problem with people today, they have so little common sense. If you want me to give you the Christian angle on this discussion, I can do that too . . . just let me know.

[Superfraggle]

guess it's time for my two cents....

doing an action perceived to be "gay" (i.e. having sex with another man if you are male, etc.) is a choice.

Whether you find that you enjoy doing so, or prefer it to doing "straight" things (i.e. having sex with a female if you are male) isn't really a choice. You either feel that way or you don't.

It is the action that is the choice, rather than the state of being. You can choose to experiment and you can choose to break outside general social "norms", but whether or not you enjoy it isn't really a choice. It may be genetic, it may be environmental, it may be random, or it may (as I think it probably is) be a combination of all three, but I don't see how it really matters.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Sammie+Jan 1 2005, 10:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sammie @ Jan 1 2005, 10:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Stop going "christian overlord of Morality" on us and we can resume this.

What's this "christian overlord of Morality" stuff? I've been talking common sense stuff here. That's the problem with people today, they have so little common sense. If you want me to give you the Christian angle on this discussion, I can do that too . . . just let me know. [/b][/quote]
Thank you Sammie for allowing us the opportunity to ask for your opinion. You are a wonderful man, that's for sure. First you charitably let us non-Christians exist and now you allow us to ask you about it. Truly a great and tolerant man.

Go easy on the "common sense" business though. First you ask for scientific proof, now you are asking for common sense. If you are working from the book I think you are then neither "scientific proof" nor "common sense" are found in the index of that particular document.

Sorry sorry I got away from myself. Thank you again for allowing me to co-exist in your Christian paradise. May I wash your feet?

[Sammie]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Jan 2 2005, 12:16 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Jan 2 2005, 12:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

What's this "christian overlord of Morality" stuff? I've been talking common sense stuff here. That's the problem with people today, they have so little common sense. If you want me to give you the Christian angle on this discussion, I can do that too . . . just let me know.

Thank you Sammie for allowing us the opportunity to ask for your opinion. You are a wonderful man, that's for sure. First you charitably let us non-Christians exist and now you allow us to ask you about it. Truly a great and tolerant man.

Go easy on the "common sense" business though. First you ask for scientific proof, now you are asking for common sense. If you are working from the book I think you are then neither "scientific proof" nor "common sense" are found in the index of that particular document.

Sorry sorry I got away from myself. Thank you again for allowing me to co-exist in your Christian paradise. May I wash your feet?[/b][/quote]
Absolutely not! That's our job. By the way, Christianity, common sense, and scientific proof are very compatible with each other. One complements the other. It's a very very orderly universe we live in. :yes:

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Sammie+Jan 1 2005, 11:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sammie @ Jan 1 2005, 11:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Thank you Sammie for allowing us the opportunity to ask for your opinion. You are a wonderful man, that's for sure. First you charitably let us non-Christians exist and now you allow us to ask you about it. Truly a great and tolerant man.

Go easy on the "common sense" business though. First you ask for scientific proof, now you are asking for common sense. If you are working from the book I think you are then neither "scientific proof" nor "common sense" are found in the index of that particular document.

Sorry sorry I got away from myself. Thank you again for allowing me to co-exist in your Christian paradise. May I wash your feet?

Absolutely not! That's our job. By the way, Christianity, common sense, and scientific proof are very compatible with each other. One complements the other. It's a very very orderly universe we live in. :yes: [/b][/quote]
Ahh yes a very orderly universe indeed. The gay penguins are just a test and only the true believer can say "no they aren't".

Tell me though, if you don't buy the fruity-flightless-bird theory, do you still buy the talking snake scenario?

If you don't believe that then are those literalist types doomed to an afterlife of fire and brimstone just like me?

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally posted by Sammie@Jan 2 2005, 03:52 AM
By the way, Christianity, common sense, and scientific proof are very compatible with each other. One complements the other. It's a very very orderly universe we live in. :yes:

Sammie if you truely do believe that, then I think we agree on one major aspect of religion.

It's funny how we can both believe in the same basic things, yet have complete opposite views on a topic such as this.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Jan 2 2005, 01:03 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Jan 2 2005, 01:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Absolutely not! That's our job. By the way, Christianity, common sense, and scientific proof are very compatible with each other. One complements the other. It's a very very orderly universe we live in. :yes:

Ahh yes a very orderly universe indeed. The gay penguins are just a test and only the true believer can say "no they aren't".

Tell me though, if you don't buy the fruity-flightless-bird theory, do you still buy the talking snake scenario?

If you don't believe that then are those literalist types doomed to an afterlife of fire and brimstone just like me?[/b][/quote]
It was orderly until people started interfering and locking animals in cages so other people could come and star at the poor animals locked in cages. It causes the poor animals to start behaving strangely.

But . . . hey . . . we're in control, and damn it! We NEVER screw up. EVER!!!

Talking snake? Would you be talking about that snake in the garden who talked to the gullible woman who convinced the panting heterosexual man to take a bite of the apple with her so they could discover the finer things in life together? He was a devil of a snake oil salesman and you KNOW you should NEVER trust those sleazy salesmen. It seems to me like there is a "moral" in that stary that we can all learn from.

What's the problem? :innocent:

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally posted by Sammie@Jan 2 2005, 04:30 AM
Would you be talking about that snake in the garden who talked to the gullible woman who convinced the panting heterosexual man to take a bite of the apple with her so they could discover the finer things in life together? He was a devil of a snake oil salesman and you KNOW you should NEVER trust those sleazy salesmen. It seems to me like there is a "moral" in that stary that we can all learn from.

What's the problem? :innocent:

this is where I think myself and the stereotypical right wing religous person differ (not saying you and I Sammie)

But, there seems to be a number of religious doctrines that are "read between the lines", from what I can gather with people I've argued with, and talking to a friend of mine who's in training to become a minister, being gay is one of them (again debatable, obviously)

But, in the Garden of Eden story is the moral:

Don't listen to the devil, reject him and his evil ways?

or

Don't eat apples?

or

By extention fruit in general?



on a side note I thought this was interesting:

Search "Homosexual"

However:

Another Search For Homosexual in all English Versions of the Bible

Just for kicks (I'm going to quote the bible versions directly since they aren't copywrited... if I'm not mistaken, Mods feel free to edit if you believe I am mistaken)

Corinthians 6:9 (New International Version)

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

**note, not just say but sexually immoral as well... hope no one here has ever cheated or had a one night stand

Corinthians 6:9 (The Message Version)

Don't you realize that this is not the way to live? Unjust people who don't care about God will not be joining in his kingdom. Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex,

**note, so if you're just, and care about God... BUT are homosexual that's ok, alteast that's how I read it.

Corinthians 6:9 (King James Version)

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

**note, fornicators isn't listed on Dictonary.com, effeminate according to Dictonary.com is having more female qualities than male, is this genetic or a choice? Does that mean being metrosexual is wrong? While the stereotypical gay male is like this, not all are, therefore it's not being gay but acting like a woman... what about vice-versa... what about being a tom-boy?

Corinthians 6:9 (King James Version)

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites,

Footnotes:

1. 1 Corinthians 6:9 That is, catamites

** note according to Dictonary.com a catarmite is a boy who has a relationship sexually with a man, which is a form of homosexuality but not all forms. See Apple - Fruit question above

Corinthians 6:9 (Young's Literal Translation)

have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites,

**note sodomy is unatural sexual acts, who determine's what's normal or not: some exaples being homosexuality, beatiality, anal sex, oral sex, etc.

Corinthians 6:9 (Darby Translation)

Do ye not know that unrighteous [persons] shall not inherit [the] kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who make women of themselves, nor who abuse themselves with men,

**note wouldn't this mean getting into a fight (physical abuse) rather than consentual sex? Thus being gay is ok, but fighting is not?

Corinthians 6:9 (New Life Version)

Do you not know that sinful men will have no place in the holy nation of God? Do not be fooled. A person who does sex sins, or who worships false gods, or who is not faithful in marriage, or men who act like women, or people who do sex sins with their own sex, will have no place in the holy nation of God.

**note, if a sex sin is sodomy, I guess by extention that would mean you can be gay but can't have sex. If you're straight but have had a sexual experiance other than missionary... you're in God's (New Life Version) eyes you're no different than being gay.

Corinthians 6:9 (Wycliffe New Testament)

Whether ye know not, that wicked men shall not wield the kingdom of God? Do not ye err; neither lechers, neither men that serve maumets [neither men serving to idols], neither adulterers, neither lechers against kind, neither they that do lechery with men,

**note, according to Dictonary.com lechery is excessive sexual acts, not just sexual acts... so be gay, but don't have too much sex

Corinthians 6:9 (Worldwide English (New Testament))

Do you not know that bad people will have no part in the kingdom where God rules? Do not be fooled. There are some people who will not have part in that place. They are those who commit adultery of any kind, those who have idols, or steal, or are always wanting more, or talk wrong things about people, or drink plenty of strong drink, or take things by force, or curse.

**note, this one says nothing about being homosexual, but if you said "######" after a bad call then took a swig of beer... sorry off to hell with you (would explain why the hockey gods were p*ssed at us in the finals... oh wait hockey gods are wrong too... trying to apease them could explain our lack of success in the 90's)





Those are just some passages from Corinthians 6:9 taken out of some of the 19 versions of the English Bible found on BibleGateway.com. Now realize that not only are there 19 versions of the English Bible, but there are 31 different languages you can search under.

That's alot of different versions of the same BASIC thing. I say basic thing as the message of be good, do to others as you would have them do to you, respect yourself, respect others, and love each other, and God, are common in all. However details like being homosexual are not.

Points to Ponder



just to be clear all the Dictonary.com's have the link straight to the definiton of the word in question.

[Sammie]

Wow! You put a lot of research into that! Interesting stuff. I'm pondering.

[Kidder]

Originally posted by Skyceman@Jan 1 2005, 04:38 PM
Fact 1: It was a word of mouth advertising study - not a registry study. Bailey has even now retracted the number you're using as he admits the numbers are biased on the high side because of the volunteer effect. Even with those flawed numbers he altered the very presentation of them:

...

Fact 3: For the twin gene theory to be made fact, there should never be a case where one identical twin is heterosexual and one is homosexual. It's genetically impossible since both identical twins share 100 percent of the same genes. If sexual orientation is genetic, then both identical twins will always be either heterosexual or homosexual. Bailey and Pillard's findings of only 52 percent discredits their own hypothesis. In fact, their findings show that nongenetic factors play a significant part in shaping sexual preference.

[B]Very interesting retort, I was not aware of this study nor am I surprised by it. Of course using scientific research in these matters is not always useful, because there is no conclusive or empirical scientific evidence for either side as of yet. All Jones' and Yarhouse's study seems to do is refute Baileys, as is probably the case in most study's of this nature. I admit I didn't know much about Bailey's study nor of the many other study's I could have listed by other researchers that I know little to nothing about.

And in regards to 'fact 3', I acknowledge that homosexuality is most likely not strictly genetic. Like I said before it looks to be a mixture of nature and nurture. Just how much is relient on either is not yet clear nor may ever be. But even the end of your 'fact 3' seems to acknowledge environmental factors serving an important role, since I highly doubt nongenetic factors refers to a free choice.

[Daradon]

Originally posted by Sammie+Dec 31 2004, 09:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sammie @ Dec 31 2004, 09:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Daradon@Dec 31 2004, 01:07 AM
Skyceman - Your last quote says that the 'queer by choice' group comprises about 8% of the total. That's a pretty small amount. And I can't disagree that I don't know people that haven't experimented and ended up liking it, especially women. But that's only 8% give or take.

And doing my thinking out loud. Even if it was a choice for everyone (which I don't think anyone here will admit it is for 100%, but let's say what if) why would that matter? Who are they hurting? Why does it matter?

Can't pull the 'nature' card, that's how this thread was started, showing it's pretty normal in nature.

Don't agree with the 'slippery slope' card. The one that argues legalizing these unions and calling them marriage will open the door to beastiality and incest and pedeophelia. One huge difference between the two. Gay marige is between two consenting adults. Animals can't consent, and there are laws in place to protect children that will never be overturned because we know people can't make certain decisions at younger ages. Someone here keeps arguing the brother/sister (or two opposite sex partners closely related) of legal age scenario, but that's such an obsense small part of the equation, it's not right or fair to judge one groups right on the rights of another. And there are no statistics to show that this is a growing group either or that it has even been significantly large.

The 'family' card is a bunch of bunk. Divorce rate is over 50%. Fathers abuse, mothers abandon (or both vice versa). Drugs, Alcohol, Violence. The family was in bad shape long ago. This won't add to it's problems. In my view point it might actually help beacuse we got two people who actually care enough about each other to fight for it.

So really? What does it matter? Who really cares? Why is it a bad thing? It's not corroding our 'morals', just changing rules placed by man long ago. To me morals are such things as love, forgiveness, TOLERANCE. Morals are not rules one person or god (see person acting on 'god's' behalf) made up.

Where are you getting the statistics on gays from? Do you have any reason why the statistics on family violence and breakup are so high over the last twenty years compared to the generations before?

It's obvious you don't have a clue what morals are. Let me give you the dictionary meaning of Morals:"good in character or conduct; virtuous according to civilized standards of right and wrong; capable of understanding right and wrong; having to do with character or with the difference between right and wrong; based on principles of right conduct rather than on law or custom; teaching a good lesson; having a good influence. Ethical. In agreement with a standard of what is right and good in character or conduct. Right and good according to the customary rules and accepted standards of society. He leads a moral life. Agreement with principles of right conduct or good living expressed in a system or code, especially of the branch of philosophy dealing with moral conduct or of a profession or business."

While we're at it let's examine the dictionary meaning of the word, tolerate: "Allow, permit, bear, endure, put up with. Endure or resist the action of a drug or poison."

You have to admit Christians in North America are a very tolerant group since they strongly voice their objections to the gay lifestyle, yet there is no ground-swell movement to persecute gays. Look at all the different religious groups that have always been allowed to co-exist with Christians throughout the history of Canada, the United States, and Europe under Christian governments. Try practicing gay, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, or Buddhist lifestyles in Iran or Saudi Arabia and see what happens. [/b][/quote]
Sammie,

The only percentage I used about 'gays' was from Skyceman's post. I got it from his argument and even mentioned so in mine. Please read more carefully in the future.

Secondly, I don't know why marriage and family has been doing more poorly in the last little while, all I was saying is it's probably a combination of factors and saying that the argument that 'homosexuals are ruining the family unit' is a baseless argument.

Third, it all depends on what is a family or your family. I came from a broken home and really only had one parent. Nowadays there are still broken homes, but lots more people who are willing to take care, help out, and nurture the kids. To me, it's all about love and respect and teaching.

Fourth, perhaps you don't know what morals are. You can define a word, or you can feel something in your heart. You can preach about rules and 'social behaviour' or you can turn the other cheek to your enemy, help out someone down on their luck, or even a screw-up who needs a second chance like an addict. You can cry from the rooftop about everything that is different and strange, or you can embrace these differences and enjoy the crazy tapestry of life. You can tell someone how to act, or you can touch their heart with kindness and hope they do the same to someone else.

My religion and philosophy doesn't preach morals, we just practice them.

Fifth, please don't tell me how tolerant Christians are in our western world. There are lots who aren't, and I'm pretty sure the story would be different if there were more Christians, or the right wing had their way. You can't compare it to other nations because they have different governments too, not just religions. You say 'yet there is no ground-swell movement to persecute gays' This shouldn't be an issue or an argument. No one should persecute anyone. I don't go around saying. Hey look how good I'm doing, I didn't kick a homeless person in the face today! I didn't put a burning cross on someone's lawn today! I didn't laugh at the man with AIDS even though he got it from gay sex. I mean come on. Your supposed to be tolerant, even according to your own book, so don't look for a medal for it.

As for your comment about Christianity going hand in hand with common sense and science. Well, I will admit, there is lots of common sense in many religions. But Christianity is far from the top of the scale. Maybe you should research some Buddism or Taoism before making such a claim. And don't even get me started on Christianity going hand in hand with science. The church put Gallieo under house arrest, and have persecuted countless scientists, thinkiners, philosophers, artists and people who could have added so much to our society.

It's not the Christian way or teaching people have problems with. It's the attitude of some of the followers who say 'this is the only way' or 'this is the right way and you should change'. Laws shouldn't be based on religion period. And it's very easy to be moral, caring, sensitive, whatever, outsie of religion. We can still have caring laws, righteous laws, important laws, without them coming from a book that is from a society thousands of years old.

[Daradon]

Wow amazing post Scout!!!

What I liked most was this:

'That's alot of different versions of the same BASIC thing. I say basic thing as the message of be good, do to others as you would have them do to you, respect yourself, respect others, and love each other, and God, are common in all. However details like being homosexual are not.'

That's basically what I was trying to say about morals vs rules. Fundamental caring beliefs like respect and love vs details like homosexuality.

At the end of the day I think morality (or living a good life) comes down to: Are you giving or taking? Are you including, or excluding? Are you creating or destroying? Are you loving or hating?

Our current law excludes a group of people from a basic human (or maybe societal) right. Regardless if they are in that group by nature or nuture, by gene or choice, or by a mixture of things, we are still excluding them from this right. The new law hopes to give it back to them.

And even if we don't agree with it, we can be good people, the better people (if that's they way you choose to look at it), by doing unto them, they way we ant them to do unto us and unto society.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally posted by Daradon@Jan 3 2005, 06:47 PM
As for your comment about Christianity going hand in hand with common sense and science. Well, I will admit, there is lots of common sense in many religions. But Christianity is far from the top of the scale. Maybe you should research some Buddism or Taoism before making such a claim. And don't even get me started on Christianity going hand in hand with science. The church put Gallieo under house arrest, and have persecuted countless scientists, thinkiners, philosophers, artists and people who could have added so much to our society.

Daradon,

first of all, thanks for the kind words, you have no idea how big the smile is on my face at the moment. If *some* people could just understand what I said in that post, we all might be a bit better off. (note that *some* is not directed at anyone in particular)

However, (there's always a however)

I disagree with your quote above. There is a difference between Christianity and the church. I believe Christianity goes hand in hand with science, logic, and common sense, however the church (be it whichever, you're reffering to Roman Catholic above) can differ, as well it's run by humans, and humans aren't perfect.

I find it kind of funny that I know Roman Catholics that argue until they're blue in the face that gay marriage should be legalized, and I know United followers (a church that accepts gay marriage) that argue until they're blue in the fact that it shouldn't be.

I don't think it's fair to brand all forms of Christianity with something some people did several hundred years ago.

Does religion = common sense + science + logic? I dunno, but I like to believe so, even if it hasn't been proven yet.

But I just wanted to make the distinction between religion (or in this case Christianity, I know I've been using the two words interchangably and they aren't) with "the church"

[Daradon]

Originally posted by Maritime Q-Scout@Jan 3 2005, 05:25 PM
I disagree with your quote above. There is a difference between Christianity and the church. I believe Christianity goes hand in hand with science, logic, and common sense, however the church (be it whichever, you're reffering to Roman Catholic above) can differ, as well it's run by humans, and humans aren't perfect.

Agree, and I usually make that distinction (got lazy or forgot or was too worked up this time however). I have nothing against Christianity, AND I love it's teachings. The church however...

Although, when I do think about it now. ALL religions are still only as good as the people within in them. The current people teaching and preaching and doing. That said, Christianity still gets a bit of a black eye in my book. (Along with many other religions. And yes it is somewhat unfair that some people give others in their group a black eye, but hey, the church is the very reason I left Christianity myself. I was a devout Roamn Catholic for many years. I found I couldn't practice tolerance or argue for what I beieved was right with it's history and some of it's followers.)

No one can prove a god, a collective consciousness, a theory of everything, or a supreme being beyond a reasonable doubt yet. Until we do, all religions, philosophies, teachings and theories, are still man made, just like thier churches or temples or books or whatever. Which means we can look at a organization by the attiudes of ALL the people within them, not just the followers and not just their leaders (be they doing the right thing or not).

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally posted by Daradon@Jan 3 2005, 08:38 PM
Although, when I do think about it now. ALL religions are still only as good as the people within in them.

The medium is the message

touche, I see your point.

However, disagree :P but not really

religions are only as good as the people, yeah, but I'm going to take it one step further and say Religion (going to use capitalized singular) is what is just, scientific, logical, and is pure and simple common sense.

my belief is that there's only one religion, but because of people, being people (inherently flawed) we misunderstand (is that a word) and divide it up, and make different forms of religons.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Maritime Q-Scout@Jan 3 2005, 08:09 PM
religions are only as good as the people, yeah, but I'm going to take it one step further and say Religion (going to use capitalized singular) is what is just, scientific, logical, and is pure and simple common sense.

You'll just have to explain that one.

Especially the "pure and simple common sense" part. And the logical part. Might as well try to explain how it is scientific as well.

[Daradon]

Originally posted by Maritime Q-Scout+Jan 3 2005, 09:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Maritime Q-Scout @ Jan 3 2005, 09:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Daradon@Jan 3 2005, 08:38 PM
Although, when I do think about it now. ALL religions are still only as good as the people within in them.

The medium is the message

touche, I see your point.

However, disagree :P but not really

religions are only as good as the people, yeah, but I'm going to take it one step further and say Religion (going to use capitalized singular) is what is just, scientific, logical, and is pure and simple common sense.

my belief is that there's only one religion, but because of people, being people (inherently flawed) we misunderstand (is that a word) and divide it up, and make different forms of religons. [/b][/quote]
Lol, then I guess this is were we're going to have to part ways. I think there are many religions, and I think that the state of people and their beliefs prove this. I think there may be one TRUTH. But there are obviously different religions.

I also think many religious beliefs are pretty far away from common sense and science. I think the common ground between the religions is when you look at the teachings, because most of them just focus on being good people and living good lives and loving one another. However a lot of the old stories are pretty far from common sense and science, as well as lots of the 'rules'.

Obviously the way some religions believed where water came from, rainbows, how the sun circled the earth, etc. etc. etc. deviate from science and even often in their thinking before science could have proved this, the deviated from common sense.

But I still loved your real long post, and my beliefs in no way mean yours wrong. We just don't agree and/or think differently.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally posted by Daradon+Jan 4 2005, 01:26 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Daradon @ Jan 4 2005, 01:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

The medium is the message

touche, I see your point.

However, disagree :P but not really

religions are only as good as the people, yeah, but I'm going to take it one step further and say Religion (going to use capitalized singular) is what is just, scientific, logical, and is pure and simple common sense.

my belief is that there's only one religion, but because of people, being people (inherently flawed) we misunderstand (is that a word) and divide it up, and make different forms of religons.

Lol, then I guess this is were we're going to have to part ways. I think there are many religions, and I think that the state of people and their beliefs prove this. I think there may be one TRUTH. But there are obviously different religions.

I also think many religious beliefs are pretty far away from common sense and science. I think the common ground between the religions is when you look at the teachings, because most of them just focus on being good people and living good lives and loving one another. However a lot of the old stories are pretty far from common sense and science, as well as lots of the 'rules'.

Obviously the way some religions believed where water came from, rainbows, how the sun circled the earth, etc. etc. etc. deviate from science and even often in their thinking before science could have proved this, the deviated from common sense.

But I still loved your real long post, and my beliefs in no way mean yours wrong. We just don't agree and/or think differently. [/b][/quote]
I like how you put on TRUTH, what I was getting at with Religion (capitalized, singular) as opposed to religions (lowercase plural)

actually by the sounds of it we believe the same thing, but are articulating in different fashions, using different rhetoric to express ourselves

... sound framiliar?

[Daradon]

Originally posted by Maritime Q-Scout@Jan 4 2005, 09:30 AM
I like how you put on TRUTH, what I was getting at with Religion (capitalized, singular) as opposed to religions (lowercase plural)

actually by the sounds of it we believe the same thing, but are articulating in different fashions, using different rhetoric to express ourselves

... sound framiliar?

When I took philosophy, I was told that 'philosophy is the search for truth'. The prof asked if everyone was a philosopher, (and I had enough guts to answer) 'yes, I think that everyone, if they have good arguments, is a philosopher, because everyone has their own philosophies.'

Well the reason I remember that to this day is because the prof them proceed to to me and the class why I was wrong. Really drug me through the mud. Basically what it came down to (in his mind maybe, but he knew more than philosophy than me, so I know whem I'm beat) is that very few people are philosophers and that philosophy is the search for truth.

I believe the same with religion. Just because a religion believes something, teaches it or preaches it doesn't make it right, no matter how appealing, nice, loving etc. Religion, like philosophy, is the search for answers. Religion seeks to answer the fundamental human questions. 'Who am I? How did I get here? Why am I here?' But just because it attempts to answer these questions doesn't give it validity per se.

To put it a better way is, Religion can be the search for truth, but there doesn't necessarily have to be any truth in religion.

To confuse the meanings of these words, is to simplify things I think. And worse, it gives credit to some whacked out, even evil ideas. I totally know what you are saying. Religion is the closeness to the answers, the the ultimate truth. But it doesn't mean that religion and truth are interchangeable as words. They both have their purposes.

The problem with religion is some people TAKE it as truth. And that's were we, or churches, or communities, or nations, get into p*ssing matches. My god is bigger than your god. We are right. We are going to heaven, even as we kill our people, we'll be martyred. (And this isn't a dig against Islam, Christianity has probably done it more over the ages anyway).

In that example you can see how putting truth and religion in the same sentance would not only be wrong and illogical, but hurtful and dangerous.

And I know what you mean about 'humans screwing it up' or 'screwing up the message' but that's all we have. And in truth, religion is how we interact with god and our world. WE. How WE interact. You can never take humanity out of the equation. So to say we screw it up is a bit of a non issue, because without people, there is no religion.