|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 9:27 am
And if we are wrong ... then it's His own fault for not convicting us? sweatdrop I guess it's no big deal either way. Either it's a sin and you tell others to change and they don't, so then you're no longer held accountable cuz you've done your part. And as for the sinners, they keep doing what they're doing, truly feeling in their heart that what they're doing is fine- how could God condemn them for not knowing any better? And then, on the other hand, it's not a sin and there's nothing to worry about.
There. I feel better about myself now. neutral
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 9:32 am
Captain_Theoretical Quote: It has nothing to do with evolution vs. creationism. Humans are capable of logical thought processes, ego, and superego. Animals are not. Therefore, we are (morally) superior. Besides, we are the dominant species on the planet, thus making us (according to natural selection) the greatest species on the planet. Morally superior, perhaps. But not as powerful as we make ourselves out to be. Dominant species, also. We have higher thinking, and therefore we can overrule our animal instincts. But on a fundamental level humans are just the same as animals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:25 am
Quote: Yes, but if animals have souls, then that implies they can either go to Heaven or Hell when they die, which would mean they were in need of salvation, which can only come through Jesus and the Gospel. Animals don't have the propensity to understand salvation or its necessity nor the capacity to make a conscious decision to accept Christ into their life; God would not be so cruel as to give a creature a soul that was condemned to Hell from the get-go. You see I disagree, since animals are pure and sinless they should by default go to heaven. Animals don't need to be forgiven because there is nothing to forgive. If animals do not have souls, a soul must be your higher thought. Your mind. But all living things have energy, and energy can not be created or destroyed. When you die, what happens to your energy if it is not linked in any way to your soul? And without energy. i.e. electrical impulses, how can you even have a mind? But then again, my dog, for example, most certainly has a mind. While he relies mostly on instinct being a dog and all, he can feel love and any emotion you can think of. If animals have no souls, are they just meat? Is a tree just an object? I'm sorry I've just managed to confuse myself. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:39 am
Captain_Theoretical Well obviously I didn't use the exact phrasing but that is what I meant. To drink so that it causes harm. No, it's not. Read the link. It's very short. Quote: Maybe, but the urge to drink is certainly not as strong as the urge to have sex. You obviously haven't met a really bad alcoholic (or druggie for that matter). Quote: Morally superior, perhaps. But not as powerful as we make ourselves out to be. Dominant species, also. We have higher thinking, and therefore we can overrule our animal instincts. Humans can create, humans can destroy, humans can understand when it iis right and/or wrong to do so. Animals can't even distinguish the passage of time, as far as most scientists believe. Quote: But on a fundamental level humans are just the same as animals. Biologically, yes. Quote: God values us more because he can have a close relationship with us, unlike the bird. But God's love is infinite and I don't believe He plays favorites. I suppose you have a point there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:41 am
Fushigi na Butterfly Yes, but if animals have souls, then that implies they can either go to Heaven or Hell when they die, which would mean they were in need of salvation, which can only come through Jesus and the Gospel. Animals don't have the propensity to understand salvation or its necessity nor the capacity to make a conscious decision to accept Christ into their life; God would not be so cruel as to give a creature a soul that was condemned to Hell from the get-go. So do retarded people not have souls? How about vegetables, or those in a coma? Not disagreeing with you, just bringing up an interesting thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 2:26 pm
Quote: No, it's not. Read the link. It's very short. I did read the link, it says to pathologically drink so that it causes social or occupational harm. I was close enough. Quote: You obviously haven't met a really bad alcoholic (or druggie for that matter). I meant if you have a biological predisposition to alcoholism, but have not nessecarily consumed alcohol. Quote: Humans can create, humans can destroy, humans can understand when it iis right and/or wrong to do so. Animals can't even distinguish the passage of time, as far as most scientists believe. Yes. We are more intelligent, we have larger brains, we are morally superior. But we're still animals. Sidenote, dolphins are really intelligent. They are the only animals besides humans that can recognize their reflections and check themselves out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 3:40 pm
Hmmm soon I've kinda been follwoing this thread but I've basically said all I can on this issue and well... school started so um... yeah I'll be much less frequent.
I like what Ryuu said about the "marriage" being just legal binding. Regardless of religious beliefs, I think if a gay couple wants to make that commitment they should like... you know, be able to see one another in the hospital, that kind of stuff. Technically when you get down to it, the governement can't recognize the religious marriage of anyone, gya or straight.
There's naturally that "seperate but equal" argument that people use against civil unions and that kind of stuff, but I think, in some ways, this is different. This isn't a predominant in lives and civil rights was (I mean, does being married or not married affect everything you do in life, like where you go to school, eat etc like it did with civil rights).
So I don't think that'll be a big a problem (not as big a civil rights, anyway).
I also, as I've said, have trouble tellign someone they're wrong based on somethign the believe. And the way I see it, most homosexuals already know Christian's see it as a sin, so why repeat it.
It's they're choice and they have to make the first step.
That last bit was kinda irrelevant on the topic, wasn't it? sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 5:53 pm
Captain_Theoretical I did read the link, it says to pathologically drink so that it causes social or occupational harm. I was close enough. Not really, but whatever. Quote: I meant if you have a biological predisposition to alcoholism, but have not nessecarily consumed alcohol. Ok. Quote: Yes. We are more intelligent, we have larger brains, we are morally superior. But we're still animals. Sidenote, dolphins are really intelligent. They are the only animals besides humans that can recognize their reflections and check themselves out. Yes, we are physically animals. Doesn't stop us from being superior animals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:24 pm
Quote: Hmmm soon I've kinda been follwoing this thread but I've basically said all I can on this issue and well... school started so um... yeah I'll be much less frequent. I like what Ryuu said about the "marriage" being just legal binding. Regardless of religious beliefs, I think if a gay couple wants to make that commitment they should like... you know, be able to see one another in the hospital, that kind of stuff. Technically when you get down to it, the governement can't recognize the religious marriage of anyone, gya or straight. I whole-heartedly agree. Quote: There's naturally that "seperate but equal" argument that people use against civil unions and that kind of stuff, but I think, in some ways, this is different. This isn't a predominant in lives and civil rights was (I mean, does being married or not married affect everything you do in life, like where you go to school, eat etc like it did with civil rights). So I don't think that'll be a big a problem (not as big a civil rights, anyway). Well marriage is a civil right, but anyhow, it's still not the same as segregation because A. Not all heterosexuals choose to have a religious marriage ceremony. B. Though it might be frowned upon, there is no way of it being of a lesser quality marriage because the idea is to give them all the rights. However there will still be a fight for those who do wish to have a religious marriage ceremony, but the marriage right is a big leap. And homosexual relationships are already frowned upon. It would not be a huge change. Quote: Not really, but whatever. Alright I admit I was wrong, but that's what I meant. Quote: Yes, we are physically animals. Doesn't stop us from being superior animals. True. Just a random fact, it used to be widely accepted that our use of tools separated us from animals, but after it was discovered that animals do use tools it became widely accepted that our written language was what distinctly seperated us from animals. The bible is written, and it often referred to as God's 'Word'. Ooh coincedince? Or not? wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 9:09 pm
Cometh The Inquisitor Fushigi na Butterfly Yes, but if animals have souls, then that implies they can either go to Heaven or Hell when they die, which would mean they were in need of salvation, which can only come through Jesus and the Gospel. Animals don't have the propensity to understand salvation or its necessity nor the capacity to make a conscious decision to accept Christ into their life; God would not be so cruel as to give a creature a soul that was condemned to Hell from the get-go. So do retarded people not have souls? How about vegetables, or those in a coma? Not disagreeing with you, just bringing up an interesting thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 9:49 pm
Quote: They have souls because they were created in God's image. The way I see it is the soul is more God's image. Especially if you go with the whole evolution thing; then if God just set the world in motion and we did evolve from an ape ancestor, then it would really just be our souls bearing His image, not our physical body. Bringing evolution into it makes it extremely complicated if it is assumed animals don't have souls. Did we start having souls when we became hominids? Did we start having souls when we reached some level of intelligence? I believe it is our souls that were created in His image. He is flawless, perfect. Not even the most skilled artist can capture perfection, there will always be flaws. We are the image of God, we are innately flawed but I believe we are also innately good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:46 pm
Captain_Theoretical He is flawless, perfect. Not even the most skilled artist can capture perfection, there will always be flaws. We are the image of God, we are innately flawed but I believe we are also innately good. Not even the most skilled human artist can capture perfection. Besides, we weren't made perfect, we were made sinless. The difference is huge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:31 pm
Quote: Not even the most skilled human artist can capture perfection. Besides, we weren't made perfect, we were made sinless. The difference is huge. I was just using it as an example. We aren't perfect, so our sinless beginnings are irrelevant because we are destined to sin because of our flawed nature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 4:56 pm
@Fushigi: I like what you said about our soul's being God's image- that makes a lot of sense. I don't want to go into all the technicalities of what y'all said because I think it over complicates things and we kinda loose the purpose... but whatev XP
@Captain: That's basically why I said I didn't think there would be a huge uproar over civil unions and such... I understand the potential for it though. Like maybe a hospital not letting a legally bound homosexual couple to visit one another in a life or death situation because they refuse the recognize the union. Course there would be a whole load of lawsuits but... it's hypothetical. I think there's still the potential for problems but I don't think it will be on the scale of civil rights. And there will always be potential for problems, no matter what.
@Everyone: Um... so someone was talking about gay penguins... which I found interesting. My friend said he read somewhere that some scientists have done experiments and think that when a population reaches a certain level, people (or animals, in the case of the experiments) are naturally born gay to prevent population overload and to slow production. It makes sense, seeing as we're now past 6 billion. I know there have always been homosexuals but prehaps the recent growth of homosexual community has something to do with this? It's just a theory and I'm not claiming it to be right, just putting an idea out there. I really wish I knew where my friend had read that, but he'd a very creditable source and he definetly wouldn't make something like that up... but I have no physical backing for that bit.
Just an idea I thought I'd throw into the discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:12 pm
Quote: @Everyone: Um... so someone was talking about gay penguins... which I found interesting. My friend said he read somewhere that some scientists have done experiments and think that when a population reaches a certain level, people (or animals, in the case of the experiments) are naturally born gay to prevent population overload and to slow production. It makes sense, seeing as we're now past 6 billion. I know there have always been homosexuals but prehaps the recent growth of homosexual community has something to do with this? It's just a theory and I'm not claiming it to be right, just putting an idea out there. I really wish I knew where my friend had read that, but he'd a very creditable source and he definetly wouldn't make something like that up... but I have no physical backing for that bit. There hasn't exactly been a recent surge in growth in the number of homosexuals, it's just that it's more socially acceptable to be gay. More people are coming out the closet, or people with homosexual attractions are more likely to recognize themselves as gay rather than in previous time periods when it was considered a disease and there would be far more ostracism. Gay people are having a civil rights movement. They'll end up not quite as well-off as straight people perhaps, but much more well-off than ever before. That's how it worked out for blacks and women, sadly blacks had a much farther way to go than women (or gay people for that matter) had. But fortuanately, gay people can vote. So maybe equal rights will come easier to them. Strictly from a secular American standpoint, gay people don't have equal rights and they're fighting for them. They've got my support.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
