[ndigila]

I am a straight male. At some point, I didn't care about sex, just playing with other kids. Then puberty hit, and I started getting these feelings for chics. I never ati reached a sexual cross-road where I had to chose between guys or chics, then I chose chics. I just always wanted chics, because I was born that way. If I never got to that sexual cross-road, why should I then assume that homosexuals got to that cross-road and decided to chose men instead of chics? That is hypocritical. Doesn't it make more sense to believe that they were born that way, and when hormones started raging at puberty, theirs were raging for other men?

Atlian, even if they were born that way, you still have to show why/how it's natural behavior. Kids are born with unnatural conditions all the time and their parents seek medical/psychiatric aid.

I'm a very liberal person. I'm all for legalizing prostitution, drug use, homosexual marriages, etc. Basically legalizing those crimes that are only illegal because of religion. e.g. prostitution. Why the heck is it illegal? You can go and hire someone to act as your toilet, as in, every time you want to take a dump, he lies under you and you dump on him. You can hire someone to act as your body guard, and they would die defending you. etc. But you cannot hire an adult to have consenting sex with you? How the heck can that make sense? How, if not for religion? Also, a Christian CANNOT condemn incest. We were all the products of incest, kwanza twice. First when Adam and Eve's kids slept with each other (coz there was no other way since they were the only people alive), and next when Noah's grand-kids did the same. I think incest is a no-no for me, but I don't see why it should be illegal. If an adult brother and sister fall in love with each other, why should the law stop them? Who are they hurting?

Okay, at least your consistent. Some people I've encountered would say that people have the right to do whatever they want with their body, except for drugs etc.

Do you know an overwhelming majority of people in Mashada are Christians? Most of the guys giving the reasons you stated believe in god and are Christians! Just pointing out that despite Christianity, they still do those things.

If I call myself an atheist and still believe in ghosts and the power of witchcraft, would you believe me?

Under the law, the only thing is age.

But don't you agree that there's an overwhelming number of people over 18 years who shouldn't be qualified to make decisions consenting adults should make and there's an overwhelming number of people under 18 years who are mature enough to make decisions as adults?

We don't want a society with anarchy. We want one where laws that can affect other people are obeyed, eg. don't kill, rob, rape, speed 90 on a 25 zone, etc. But if you decide that today you want some big hairy guy to do you until you can't walk, then there should be no law from prohibiting you from going out, finding the big hairy guy, paying him his asking fee, and taking him home for the night.

If society's objective is to ensure the welfare of humans, then shouldn't that include preventing individuals from hurting themselves?
If yes, then why do you think that humans have a right to do drugs, drunkenness, or even hire someone to take a dump on them?
If no, then isn't it pointless to prevent others from hurting you if you can hurt yourself (which humans constantly do)?

[ATLian]

What if I rationally chose to do the dogma after careful deductions from all probable options?

Grip,

dogma, by definition, precludes rationality. A dogma is an "established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from." Therefore, you cannot rationally think out a dogma. That's why it's a dogma. You just take it and run with it as it is. If you could argue it and make sense of it, then it wouldn't be a dogma.

[ATLian]

Originally Posted by ndigila

So are you saying there's no evidences for Christian doctrine?

The only evidence there is for Christian doctrine is The Bible. But now the issue is whether the Bible is divine or not. That's the credibility issue right there. There are many old cultures and religions that had stories that were very similar to Biblical stories - but they were written before the Bible. Even the Trinity concept, Jesus resurrecting, Noah's flood, etc. Those stories were all there before the Bible. Plus a group of subjective white men decided what would ultimately be the Bible.

Since the only evidence of Christian doctrine is so suspect, then it is hard to respect the so called evidence as being legit.

[ATLian]

Atlian, even if they were born that way, you still have to show why/how it's natural behavior. Kids are born with unnatural conditions all the time and their parents seek medical/psychiatric aid.

Homosexuality isn't natural, since the natural thing is for opposite sexes to attract. But not all unnatural behaviours are wrong. Don't forget that zamani being left handed was seen as unnatural and evil. Parents did all they could to try get their kids to be right handed, and in some uncivilised cultures, lefty kids were even killed. If not for the religious element, homosexuality wouldn't have that negative heat it generates. As much as I think that the idea of two men having sex is disgusting, I don't see why my straightness should force me to make laws to deny the gays of the sexual pleasures!



If I call myself an atheist and still believe in ghosts and the power of witchcraft, would you believe me?

Believe you in what respect? BTW it would be hard to be an atheist who believes in witchcraft and ghosts.



But don't you agree that there's an overwhelming number of people over 18 years who shouldn't be qualified to make decisions consenting adults should make and there's an overwhelming number of people under 18 years who are mature enough to make decisions as adults?

I totally agree. Unfortunately there is no test that can be done to determine if one's mental capacities qualify one to be an adult, regardless of age. Till that is possible, we have to rely on age.

[grip_daddy]

You just take it and run with it as it is. If you could argue it and make sense of it, then it wouldn't be a dogma.

I first of all analyse its contents, compare its requirements to the available alternatives, deducts and inference carefully, then decides to accept the dogma in totality. Wasn't that a rational approach preceding the acceptance of the dogma?

[ndigila]

Originally Posted by ATLian

The only evidence there is for Christian doctrine is The Bible. But now the issue is whether the Bible is divine or not. That's the credibility issue right there. There are many old cultures and religions that had stories that were very similar to Biblical stories - but they were written before the Bible. Even the Trinity concept, Jesus resurrecting, Noah's flood, etc. Those stories were all there before the Bible. Plus a group of subjective white men decided what would ultimately be the Bible.

Since the only evidence of Christian doctrine is so suspect, then it is hard to respect the so called evidence as being legit.

This depends on what you're viewing as doctrine. Is doctrine the narratives, or the explanation of human behavior and how to live a Christian life?

And by the way, the evidence for Christian doctrine is the apostolic tradition preserved by the Church. The Bible is part of the tradition (but the most important part).

[ndigila]

Homosexuality isn't natural, since the natural thing is for opposite sexes to attract. But not all unnatural behaviours are wrong. Don't forget that zamani being left handed was seen as unnatural and evil. Parents did all they could to try get their kids to be right handed, and in some uncivilised cultures, lefty kids were even killed. If not for the religious element, homosexuality wouldn't have that negative heat it generates. As much as I think that the idea of two men having sex is disgusting, I don't see why my straightness should force me to make laws to deny the gays of the sexual pleasures!

I need your answer to this question before I respond:
If society's ultimate goal is to ensure the well-being of humans, should that include ensuring that the individuals do not make decisions, even as consenting adults, that would hurt themselves?

BTW it would be hard to be an atheist who believes in witchcraft and ghosts.

In the same light, if someone claims to be a Christian but does not submit to a Christian way of life, would you still believe that that person is a Christian?

[Type R]

Originally Posted by ndigila

That's a great analogy, but let's say you weigh as many options as you can before you enter the door and close it. Are you still a free thinker?

OK, my analogy may not have been 100% informed, by standards of modern philosophy and science.

In mathematics, we are taught in primary school, "negative numbers have no square roots." Haya, then we come to Uni and we go to a course called Complex Numbers, where an entire discipline is built around the square roots of negative numbers. Just in case you thought it was just a fun theoretical hobby, you are shown implementations of complex numbers in advanced physics, used in engineering, chemistry, etc!

So, we close the door and then we open it. Should I tell my nephew in school that "yes, truly, honestly, negative numbers have square roots but that will come later?"

Another idea that we are taught when young: parallel lines never cross each other and are always at the same distance (when measured with a perpendicular line). When we get to Uni, that is seen as an option, ie not necessarily true. An axiom.

Religious people face this same problem. They are supposed to trust in the Lord/Allah, etc, and have faith. But when they fall sick, they trust ambulances, hospitals and put their faith in doctors/science. The door is open and closed at the same time. Some religious "extremists" try to get over this contradiction by not taking their sick people to hospital. Others try to say, "God sent us a good doctor." Or, "the recovery surprised even the experts, who believe a divine hand must have been involved."

So it is possible to be religious and a free thinker at the same time, but then I think there's some dishonesty involved...

Our high school CRE teacher, was a full Reverend ... but when we pressured him about some stories in the Bible, he gave in and said, "Well, some of these things I don't believe."

[ATLian]

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

I first of all analyse its contents, compare its requirements to the available alternatives, deducts and inference carefully, then decides to accept the dogma in totality. Wasn't that a rational approach preceding the acceptance of the dogma?

Please give me one Christian dogma that you believe in because you did a thorough rational evaluation of it, and came up with the rational conclusion that it was a correct dogma.

To see how difficult that is, think of one major dogma in Christianity, e.g. the concept of the Trinity - namely that the three are all one, and that the one is all three.

Now how can you rationalise that out? How do you make deductions, inferences, weigh out alternatives, then decide to accept that. It is obvious that you cannot. You just have to accept it as it is, bila any questions!

That's why I say it's not possible to rationalize out a dogma. If you could, then it's not a dogma - it's a fact!

[ATLian]

If society's ultimate goal is to ensure the well-being of humans, should that include ensuring that the individuals do not make decisions, even as consenting adults, that would hurt themselves?

I believe that you should be free to do with your body as you please if it won't affect other people negatively. e.g. you cannot smoke in a plane or office because your smoke will affect all other people in the room, but you should be able to smoke in the privacy of your house as much as you want.

That said, the thing about a civilized culture is they would still try to stop you if you tried to do something that would jeopardise your life, or save you if you had already done that life-jeopardising thing. My point is that even though the society would try to stop you from harming yourself, and even though they would put money, time and effort to save you after you have harmed yourself, there still shouldn't be laws to prevent these people from doing those things to themselves. e.g. there shouldn't be any laws preventing you from smoking crack, but if a crack-head had an overdose after a najor crack-smoking binge, I understand why a civilized society would use resources to rush him to the ER and try to save him!

Civilized society is interesting in that way. If you kill someone, you are sentenced to death (seen by some to be an uncivilized custom) by lethal injection (seen by the civilized as a civilized way to kill someone). Assume that a death row inmate tries to commit suicide days before his execution by ingesting potassium chloride. If he is found before he dies, the state will do everything and spend whatever amount of money it can to save his life - he'll be rushed to ER in the best hospital by helicopter, attended by the best docs in that hosi, pumped with the best medicines, attached to multi-million dollar life saving equipment manned by techs and docs trained in the best institutions in the US, etc. After hundreds of man hours and thousands of dollars, when his life is eventually saved and he is declared to be 100% healthy, he will be returned to death row, where he will eventually be killed by a lethal injection of potassium chloride! How does that make sense?



In the same light, if someone claims to be a Christian but does not submit to a Christian way of life, would you still believe that that person is a Christian?

Of course not. And even other Christians would call him out quickly and say he's not a Christian.