Religion

[Cerce]

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

I highly doubt that this world was created by a big bang. Or by a meteor crashing into the earth. Science in and of itself cannot describe the beggining of the world. Therefore, that is out of the question.

Most of the major religions (Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Jewish, etc.) believe that the world was created by God for a purpose; usually to serve said God. That is the nature of existence, from my point of view. To serve God. All have the same idea with that, but there is only one road to truly doing as God would have you do.

[Boruma]

The only way to find out any and all of this, is to die.
so live care-free until then.

and to all who don't wish to live care free, i say


metaphysical nihilism ftw.

[Cerce]

But if you do that, Boruma, you die continuously, and it never stops. No, I'm not talking about multiple deaths over and over again. It's one everlasting death. Do you really want to live carefree, only to find out that in doing so, you have condemned yourself to eternal death?

---

But if you do that, Boruma, you die continuously, and it never stops. No, I'm not talking about multiple deaths over and over again. It's one everlasting death. Do you really want to live carefree, only to find out that in doing so, you have condemned yourself to eternal death?

[Solion]

I just thought what you said was interesting, Cerce, so I shall respond.

The Scientific Requirements for Life are as fallows, if you want a non-religious point of view:
1) made of 1 or more cells
2) contain DNA as genetic material
3) respond to stimuli
4) metabolize
5) reproduce- here lies the problem.
6) evolutionary change

Not that it really works against your points, but on number 2), it is theorized that many simpler forms of life that existed millions of years ago was only based on RNA. Interesting thought, and it makes sense as it follows the line of "simple-> complex" that defines evolution.

And to number 5), are you also saying that individuals that choose not to/cannot reproduce for other reasons ("asexual," sterile, etc. etc.) cannot be counted as "alive?" That whole point is rather silly.

Also, on the argument that 'A fetus does not live'...

1) made of 1 or more cells-at no point does a fetus have less than one cell.
2) contain DNA as genetic material-both the sperm and egg contain compliments for each other as far as genetic material and DNA.
3) respond to stimuli-If a sperm can move on its own swimming up the birth canal then it responds to stimuli when it enters the egg
4) metabolize -of course he/she needs food from the mother to survive at all times during development and it has to go somewhere.
5) reproduce - It firstly reproduces cells to create itself, and, after it is born, and achieves a certain age, can reproduce
6) evolutionary change-humans have evolved, therefore that which is the beginning of a human also evolves.

Now, now. Anyone that says a fetus is not alive or is not human is silly. What we can say, however, is that their brain is probably not developed to the point of consciousness. If we go by a definition of consciousness such as it being a side effect of complex physical processes within the brain and not that it is brought about by the presence of a "soul," then I think it is fair to say that most legal abortions are done before the fetus is "conscious," as they are carried out very early on in the pregnancy before the fetus has time to truly develop.

A term that is often used to describe life similar to fetuses is "parasite." Putting all the sentimental and emotional thoughts aside, until that fetus becomes conscious, it is effectively just feeding directly off of the life force of its host. I think it is fair to say that the host should have some say in the matter (and no, don't say "WELL, THEY CAN CHOOSE TO NOT HAVE SECKS" because rape does not work this way), although personally I try to stay relatively neutral as I am not the one that has to give birth to it in the end.

Now, no, I don't 'hate gay people' or am homophobic. I love gay people - no homo (no pun intended). It is the act of being gay that defiles the original purpose of sex, and that is 1. to show affection to your spouse, and 2. the act of reproduction.

If you would like a more biblical reason, God formed us in our mother's womb, and knew us before we even knew ourselves. Therefore, every single fetus, reguardless of stage or activity, has a potential future in God's plan.

Homosexuality is an outright defilement of what God intended to be pure, loving, and special. Today's society has turned what was once an act of pure love, an act between one man and one woman that were deaply in love, into a thing to have fun with. It's now a game, a source of pleasure, something to flaunt. It is no longer special or loving in today's world. I have fought, will fight, and continue fighting to back God in all things.

Oh, my. Okay. Let's see. Well, the only purpose of sex is to reproduce. Any other purpose is just something we make up or add on. What I have to say is, if "Homosexuality is an outright defilement of what God intended," then why do dozens of species of animals exhibit homosexual behavior? Assuming animals are not conscious, then they were "made" that way by God, right? Or does that imply that animals really are capable of conscious thought and action?

So, really. Saying that sex is supposed to be an act of pure love is false. Not that homosexuality has anything to do with sex not being an act of pure love. If you try to tell me that homosexuals only have sex because it's "fun," I would be deeply disappointed. I have seen just as many homosexual couples that are truly, truly in love as I do heterosexual couples.

On the topic of how sex became something for enjoyment, that lines up directly with our increase (if it's possible to say increase) in consciousness. It's really easy to see with everything else in our society that we do a lot of things not because we NEED to but because we WANT to. Saying that homosexuality is "unnatural" and "wrong" because homosexuals cannot reproduce is really becoming outdated.

Bwuhlkjaljfsd how late is it I don't even remember what I typed all the way up there oh well

[Cerce]

You assume that Animals are related to Humans in behavioral context. This is not the case. Humans have a soul and were created in God's image. Animals were made under Humans; not allongside them. There is no parrallel in moral and ethical allignment between humans and animals; let allone matters of the soul. Animals were not 'made' the way they are today. In the beggining, lions litterally laid next to lambs. Nothing died, untill we, humanity, got selfish.

Then sin took a foothold.

And if "Saying that sex is supposed to be an act of pure love is false", good luck picking a chick up with that line. Human ethics generally agree that sex is an act of love, and is often refurred to as 'Making Love'. I have yet to meet someone who was not feeling a sence of 'guilt' or a hope that they 'performed to a certain level', or was heartbroken at some point in time due to someone leaving them after a sexual encounter. God meant for the two people to become one; to be one body. Think of it as two pieces of a puzzle. Having sex outside of marriage, or having it in marriage and then breaking the bond, is like trying to take those two pieces appart and still finish the puzzle. With homosexuality, it's like trying to use two identical puzzle pieces to make the full puzzle. It might work sometimes, but what will be left is a jumbled mess of mismatched pieces and distorted figures. It is not true love as God intended. They may think it is, but it is not.

[Solion]

You assume that Animals are related to Humans in behavioral context. This is not the case. Humans have a soul and were created in God's image. Animals were made under Humans; not allongside them. There is no parrallel in moral and ethical allignment between humans and animals; let allone matters of the soul. Animals were not 'made' the way they are today. In the beggining, lions litterally laid next to lambs. Nothing died, untill we, humanity, got selfish.

Then sin took a foothold.

And if "Saying that sex is supposed to be an act of pure love is false", good luck picking a chick up with that line. Human ethics generally agree that sex is an act of love, and is often refurred to as 'Making Love'. I have yet to meet someone who was not feeling a sence of 'guilt' or a hope that they 'performed to a certain level', or was heartbroken at some point in time due to someone leaving them after a sexual encounter. God meant for the two people to become one; to be one body. Think of it as two pieces of a puzzle. Having sex outside of marriage, or having it in marriage and then breaking the bond, is like trying to take those two pieces appart and still finish the puzzle. With homosexuality, it's like trying to use two identical puzzle pieces to make the full puzzle. It might work sometimes, but what will be left is a jumbled mess of mismatched pieces and distorted figures. It is not true love as God intended. They may think it is, but it is not.

Do you not accept the theory of evolution at all? If so, that's rather interesting.

[Cerce]

I accept the theory that certain species adapted to their environments. I do not believe that we came from monkeys, or that emotions are just a primal facade of our minds. We are creations of God; not a mistake, not animals.

---

(Anyways, I'ma go to sleep - and I really hope I'm not offending anyone, just speaking my mind, and what I know to be true; hope everyone else does the same)

---

(Anyways, I'ma go to sleep - and I really hope I'm not offending anyone, just speaking my mind, and what I know to be true; hope everyone else does the same)

[geckosquid]

So, Cerce. You say that sexual intercourse between men is turning sex into something to have fun with rather than an act of love, but can it not be an act of love for two men who love each other to have sex? It may not produce a child, but the fact remains that it is the ultimate act of love between human beings. You could say that sex between a man and a woman while a condom is in use would also be a "defilement" of God's original plan, by this logic, correct?

Also, out of curiosity... How is sex outside of marriage different from in marriage? If God is indeed omnipotent, will the two lovers not be together with God as a witness no matter what?

[TehCthulhu]

I know most of this has already been touched on, however I just wanted to throw in my 2 cents.

Firstly: Agnostic, atheist, or simply having no religion is 15% of America's population as opposed to 76% being Catholic or Protestant allone - not counting other Christian sects. As a result, laws will be passed in favor of the majority.

I realize we are not the majority, however it is strange that we have almost no representation, despite being the 2nd largest group, bigger than all smaller groups combined, all of which have serving members of congress or special interest groups.

Seccondly: We do not 'push our religion on America'. America takes a pat on the back and some prayers to spur them on as molestation and verbal assault. I still don't understand what is so wrong about voting to save lives, or voting against the joining of two peoples that, according to Science, makes them in essence, walking dead.

The Scientific Requirements for Life are as fallows, if you want a non-religious point of view:
1) made of 1 or more cells
2) contain DNA as genetic material
3) respond to stimuli
4) metabolize
5) reproduce- here lies the problem.
6) evolutionary change

Cerce, I believe this reasoning is meant to be applied to a species and not an individual, a single person cannot exhibit evolutionary change, they are limited to a single generation.
Your logic would also preclude sterile and/or paralyzed individuals from being able to marry and one might go so far as to say that this would also force a married couple to divorce if one of them became unable to reproduce before they had children.

Homosexuality is an outright defilement of what God intended to be pure, loving, and special. Today's society has turned what was once an act of pure love, an act between one man and one woman that were deaply in love, into a thing to have fun with. It's now a game, a source of pleasure, something to flaunt. It is no longer special or loving in today's world. I have fought, will fight, and continue fighting to back God in all things.

All these ideas come from what your idea of God is. I'm not saying your idea of God is wrong, only that your idea of God does not work for everyone, otherwise the entire world would be Pentecostal.
The fact of the matter is that if gay people choose to make love to one another or want to be married, nobody is being harmed by these actions. If these gay people have to face some manner of divine judgement then they will be the only ones disenfranchised by their actions.

Maybe it is just me, but I have never been able to understand why some victim-less actions are illegal. If we are forced to criminalize anything that offends someone's moral standards, regardless of whether or not they harm anyone, before long we will all be gunless vegans in government-approved clothing serving jail terms for swearing in front of children.
There is no reason two consenting adults shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they want to each other behind closed doors. There is no reason two people who love each other shouldn't be allowed to live together with all the same rights and privileges as their neighbors.
There is no reason someone shouldn't be able to make a wager on the outcome of an event. There is no reason I should not be able to ingest any chemicals I want, so long as I do it in a safe environment in a responsible manner. There is no reason a consenting woman should not be able to preform sexual acts in exchange for money if she does so in a safe and responsible way.

The fact is that most of these things I mention above are booming industries, despite the fact they are illegal. Their illegality creates far more problems than it solves, they are not regulated and if someone within one of these trades is being victimized, there is no place for them to turn for immediate help. When drugs are sold their profits are almost guaranteed to go to a crime lord in another country, imagine if they went to a job-creating industry and it could be taxed to increase national revenue.

I know I've gotten horribly off topic here, but I'm just trying to illustrate why I don't agree with there being laws in place that limit people's choices only because their actions could violate someone's moral code. I'm not asking for anarchy, just that those activities deemed criminal be limited to those actions that directly cause suffering to something besides the executor of the action.

TLDR: I guess I'm kinda a libertarian? Also: don't legislate religious morality. Also also: hooray for moral nihilism.

[geckosquid]

Well. I must say, I wish I was that certain of what I believed.