Subject:
|
Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 18 Dec 2000 18:19:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
581 times
|
| |
|
|
Steve Thomas wrote:
> The fact is that you've cited artificial changes - changes requiring
> intervention - to human biology to achieve the ends you've described. So if
> homosexuals were genetically or otherwise altered to reproduce among
> themselves, would homosexual relations still be immoral? Yes, they would.
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 not "artificial". "External influences to our
evolution", maybe, but not artificial.
> This is, inevitably, the *nature* question which you raised earlier, but
> apparently overlooked in your counterarguments. Note that Jesus cited the
> order of creation (male, female, "one flesh") to make his argument against
> divorce. There is an "ought to be"-ness or teleology to human nature not
> subject to the whims of technology.
Why? Why should we limit ourselves so severely?
> Here's the other side of the coin: It's also possible with technology to
> breed paralytics, those blind/deaf/dumb, or people missing their limbs or
> other bodily systems. Is an individual who has been genetically altered to
> be blind entitled to their sight in some way?
If they request it, yes.
> Are they genuinely missing something?
If they believe they are, yes. If they believe they are not, then no. It's not
up to anyone but THEM to decide.
> In that case, arguments like the ones you've made
> against a moral standard for human sexuality are grossly misplaced; they
> can't speak to the moral questions, which are by nature questions of
> necessity.
Sorry, don't follow you there. Depends on your morality.
BTW, I'm getting kind of tired of everyone stating Christian Morality as
something that just popped into existence in the Bible, like it never existed
before then. Pishtosh. True Morality (capital M) existed long before
Christians wrote it down, they can't lay claim to it as being Their Idea.
--
| Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp
| Please do not associate my personal views with my employer
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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)
|
| 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
34 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
