 | | Re: Christian morality (cont) —Kevin Wilson
|
| | | Steve Thomas wrote in message ... (...) means (...) concept - (...) ago (...) Well, stipulating that I don't much care what it means :-), but for the sake of the discussion, no: go ahead and expand on the idea. Kevin (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Christian morality (cont) —Steve Thomas
|
| | | | (...) Kevin, I ask only because if you have disagreements that constitute such a "wide [moral] gulf," and are willing to lay down statements such as "there's no non-religious reason [by this I take you to mean 'rational']...," perhaps it would be (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Christian morality (cont) —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | (...) Does this mean that you beleive that a person who is, for whatever reason, infertile should never seek out the other kinds of completion involved in a romantic/sexual union with a member of the opposite sex? Your reasoning for finding (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Christian morality (cont) —Steve Thomas
|
| | | | | | "Lorbaat" <eric@nospam.thirteen.net> wrote in message news:G5Ks5w.9nG@lugnet.com... (...) from (...) a (...) for (...) equally (...) Eric, Those are common questions (you're in good company), and I'll answer them all in the negative. What I'm (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Christian morality (cont) —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | | (...) That's ok, I think I understand the thought, even if I disagree with it. Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions and explain. eric (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Christian morality (cont) —Steve Thomas
|
| | | | | | | | "Lorbaat" <eric@nospam.thirteen.net> wrote in message news:G5Ku3I.EEA@lugnet.com... (...) this (...) You're welcome. Take care, Steve (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Christian morality (cont) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) This happens to turn out to not be actually true if one steps outside the human species. Further it's not true in principle for humans today, and as medical science continues to advance, soon it won't be true in actuality. (...) What does the (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Christian morality (cont) —Kevin Wilson
|
| | | | | | | Larry Pieniazek wrote in message ... (...) He was responding to an invitation to expand on something. At least this thread is on-topic for its subject! Kevin (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Christian morality (cont) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Fair enough. But my point remains. Arguing against certain behaviours on the grounds that they are not allowed by the church (which is what Steve is doing) requires a great deal of backstory to be proven before there is any hope of justifying (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Christian morality (cont) —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | | | (...) And applies equally for aethiests too, as I'm sure you meant to say. As for the backstory, see "Plowed ground". DaveE (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Christian morality (cont) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Oh ya. And I see you just posted a good thought starter about where morality comes from, etc. I don't speak for all atheists. I don't speak for all libertarians. (technically I'm not even atheist, actually... I'm atheist leaning agnostic) But (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Christian morality (cont) —Steve Thomas
|
| | | | | | Mr. Pieniazek, Thanks for your interest. You recently interacted with an argument of mine as follows: (...) You won't hear me argue about morality for species other than human beings, so the first point is irrelevant. I'm wondering how it isn't true (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Christian morality (cont) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | (...) It has been demonstrated that an embryo can be implanted into the abdomenal cavity of a male mammal and brought to term through the application of hormone therapies and medical supervision. The experiment I read about involved a male baboon (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Christian morality (cont) —Kevin Wilson
|
| | | | | | | | | Dave Schuler wrote in message ... (...) a (...) Dave, I don't think this has any bearing on Steve's original statement, which was that (...) The male animal bearing a fetus that you speak of was not a result of homosexual sex, nor could it have (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Christian morality (cont) —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) Actually, I think it was quite on topic. Dave! was just trying to expose the precise line at which point it becomes immoral according to the proposed moral law. For example, IF (big if) homosexual sex could produce a child, would it then be (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Christian morality (cont) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) **snip** (...) Well, if you're going to get all technical on me... 8^) I confess I was reading from Larry's statement forward, that there was indeed the medical possibility of a male carrying a child. Put in the terms you revealed to me, (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Christian morality (cont) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Right. But my thesis is that it is not necessary for an egg and a sperm to get together for a viable embryo to result. Two sperm carry sufficient genetic material to complete the needed chromosomes for a viable embryo, as long as one is (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Christian morality (cont) —Steve Thomas
|
| | | | | | | | "Dave Schuler" <orrex@excite.com> wrote in message news:G5MIGo.8H@lugnet.com... (...) I (...) the (...) is (...) a (...) I'll wait for Mr. Pieniazek to weigh in - to see if he was thinking along the same lines - before I respond. Thanks for your (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Christian morality (cont) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) You're going to have to admit that humanity is subject to the same genetic rules as other species, for starters. Once you grant that, you're all set. *All* you need to do is construct a mechanism for taking the genetic material of the two (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Christian morality (cont) —Steve Thomas
|
| | | | | | Larry, To recap, I had written: (...) You replied: (...) And I responded: (...) Finally, you clarified and said: (...) I'm not sure that's true, for one (In what sense do you mean "subject to the same genetic rules?"), but it's also irrelevant (more (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Christian morality (cont) —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | (...) This brings up a larger argument - are these changes "artificial"? I contend they are not. Evolution can come in many forms, and we are simply accelerating it with our own discoveries. If those changes are created by humans, I contend they are (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Christian morality (cont) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | (...) Tom, you are 100% correct. Wearing clothing is "artificial," but it certainly has an effect on evolution. Going to the doctor is "artificial," but unquestionably allows certain individuals to pass on their genes, when they might not otherwise (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Christian morality (cont) —Steve Thomas
|
| | | | | | In response to "Tom Stangl" <toms@netscape.com> in message news:3A3E5530.B9A803...ape.com... Tom, Recently you responded to something I wrote as follows: (...) I agree completely with your assessment, Tom, in that it raises a "larger question" as (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Christian morality (cont) —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | (...) You must not have talked to very many blind people. Many consider it an inconvenience, not crippling. Only the blind can truly state whether it is crippling or not, and that on a personal basis. (...) Good luck breeding/not breeding desires (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Christian morality (cont) —Steve Thomas
|
| | | | | | In response to "Tom Stangl" <toms@netscape.com> in message news:3A412021.29594A...ape.com... Tom, Thanks for your reply. I hope to get to this soon, but in the meantime, I was wondering if you had any feeback on the rest of my post. I had some (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Christian morality (cont) —Kevin Wilson
|
| | | | | Hi Steve, That was interesting, and it certainly makes a change from Leviticus and the crimes of Sodom :-). However, I don't think it tells me anything that makes me more sympathetic to the Christian POV on sexual morality, or changes my own views. (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Christian morality (cont) —Steve Thomas
|
| | | | | | Kevin, (...) Well, you know more about my basic assumptions, I think, than I do about yours. If you care to take a moment to state the differences, as you understand them, perhaps we could build a bridge or two. Also, I think it's rare that any one (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Christian morality (cont) - basic assumptions —Kevin Wilson
|
| | | | | | | Steve Thomas wrote in message ... (...) it's (...) Let me see if I can state some of mine. (I will undoubtedly miss some). SOme are probably irrelevant to this discussion too. I don't want to try and identify differences without you having the (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Christian morality (cont) —Kevin Wilson
|
| | | | | | Steve Thomas wrote in message ... (...) Stipulated for the sake of argument that this is so, how can anyone tell which of the current brands of christianity are closest to Christian Morality - the "real thing"? What is that core which has never (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Christian morality (cont) —James Powell
|
| | | | (...) So, what you are saying is that rape cannot exist within a marrage? Is this part of what you are trying to say? That a woman should be no more than a hole for a man? In spite of 50 years or more of court (and moral) decisions? I _dislike_ that (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Christian morality (cont) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) (I think it was a Steve) (...) What are you agreeing with <silly grin> Sex outside of marriage? Putting discussion in a subsequent post? The need for patience? I think my wife is OK with the latter two but our contract doesn't allow the (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Christian morality (cont) —Steve Thomas
|
| | | | Mr. Powell, Thanks for your feedback. You responded to part of what I had said as follows: (...) No, I'm not saying that at all in the sense in which you are using the term "marriage". I was not thinking of marriage in the legal sense, but in the (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Christian morality (cont) —Kevin Wilson
|
| | | | Steve Thomas wrote in message ... (...) Certainly. The recipient of a bribe, for example. However, there's a possible landmine in your question: define "by definition immoral" :-) (...) Which principles, yours or theirs or ??? Kevin (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
