 | | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
"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)
|
|
"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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) **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)
|
|
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" <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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
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)
|
|
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)
|
