REAL debate thread for RELIGION

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
And I'm NOT gonna play with you guys until BOP gives me a really juicy, abject apology for blatantly misusing the quote feature on the Teacup Cafe thread (and she pilfered MY evil idea!!)

BoP, stealing pants, and now ideas... tisk tisk... where will it end?

*looks around nervously while clutching her pants*

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Drgnslyer
I'm not sure where in the bible it specifically says that you cannot use birth controll....if i'm wrong, please let me know.

I'm not sure of this either. (I've really got to read the Bible. Summer reading list book #1.)

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
And I'm NOT gonna play with you guys until BOP gives me a really juicy, abject apology for blatantly misusing the quote feature on the Teacup Cafe thread ....

I'm sorry. Can you explain the "genetic burden" comment now? *waits patiently*

Originally posted by Rian

(and she came up with this great idea to misquote everyone. Of course she'd never do it to me)

Of course I wouldn't, Rian. I'm just too nice like that.

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

Back after my extended absence. Now for the painful task of catching up. Have a lot of reading to do!

--David

[Janny]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
I'm not sure of this either. (I've really got to read the Bible. Summer reading list book #1.)

I don't think it is explicitly outlawed... (you'll need to read Leviticus, btw, truely fascinating ).
I think the first condom came to England around the James I time... but don't quote me on that. That kinda thing is sort of ruled out by other rules in obeying the general system. The same kinda principle as abortion, except the RS teachers always hazily say 'yeah... i suppose it was around in Biblical times...'
But Leviticus is where to go.

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel

I'm not sure of this either. (I've really got to read the Bible. Summer reading list book #1.)

I'm pretty sure the Bible do order to 'born children like the sand in the beach', which is interpreted by some people as if god forbids using condoms and other stuff I'm not gonna mention 'cause I'm not suppose to know that stuff - but anything that 'wastes' semen ( ).

[Rían]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
I'm sorry.

"I'm sorry"?! THAT'S "a really juicy, abject apology"?!?!

C'mon, let's use some imagination here! Let's use some flattery! Let's use some, um ... let's stretch things a bit!

Here's an example: "Oh, RÃ*an, most astonishingly beautiful and incredibly intelligent of Mooters, I beg of you to please forgive your humble NZ friend for grieviously misusing the hallowed quote feature of our revered Entmoot to smear and libel you and associate you with holding scandalously wrong ideas that are totally against your all-knowing beliefs! For penance, I will publically say here on Entmoot that America and Australia are far superior to NZ, and the All-Blacks suck eggs!"

Got it?

*is waiting patiently for an imaginative apology*

[Rían]

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal
Back after my extended absence. Now for the painful task of catching up. Have a lot of reading to do!

--David

Hi! I was just thinking of you yesterday - I was cleaning out PMs and saw some of yours. Welcome back!

[Rían]

Originally posted by Eärniel
Totally unintentially on my part, I assure you. You did not say genetics misfits and neither did I say you did. However, when you mentioned huge accumulated genetic burdens I interpreted it as you meaning we are genetically flawed. If misfit is a term that can't be used in this context, blame it on my less than perfect knowledge of English.

Sorry I jumped the gun and assumed wrong. You don't put words in my mouth; I should have not assumed you meant to.

Just as an explanation - and this may be purely an English language thing, I don't know - if you would have just left it as a question ("So are you saying we're all genetic misfits?"), I wouldn't have assumed you meant that I meant that. But when you added "That's interesting", it seemed that you were definitely making that conclusion, instead of just asking me a question. I don't know if that makes sense, but that was how my reasoning worked. Just as an interesting language thing, the last sentence made a big difference in my interpretation. I'm rambling now, but language is interesting, isn't it? But I should have known better because I know how you are - sorry

[Rían]

And as far as birth control, Gwai and I had some major discussions on this - I don't believe that birth control is wrong at ALL - in fact, I think it's called for in some situations - as long as it's not abortive. IOW, any barrier method is fine, IMO.

[Janny]

Yeah, as a pragmatic Catholic (oxymoron?), I'm unsure of whether I will use contraceptives, but I hope I will never abort a child. So in short I agree with Rian. St. Thomas Aquinas spoke of 'not spilling the seed' but this is not actually, as far as I know, explicitly in scripture, not sure if it was an issue in Biblical times. So long as it's used in a loving marriage (oh! Did I not mention that? ) Then I think it's okay.

[Earniel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Sorry I jumped the gun and assumed wrong. You don't put words in my mouth; I should have not assumed you meant to.

Just as an explanation - and this may be purely an English language thing, I don't know - if you would have just left it as a question ("So are you saying we're all genetic misfits?"), I wouldn't have assumed you meant that I meant that. But when you added "That's interesting", it seemed that you were definitely making that conclusion, instead of just asking me a question. I don't know if that makes sense, but that was how my reasoning worked. Just as an interesting language thing, the last sentence made a big difference in my interpretation. I'm rambling now, but language is interesting, isn't it? But I should have known better because I know how you are - sorry

No worries, all water under the bridge now. The "That's interesting." was more my reaction to the idea [of us possibly being all genetic misfits] than a conclusion of what you were thinking. I'll try and keep it in mind next time.

And I don't think you'll get such an imaginative apology as your example from BoP . With luck, you'll still be wearing your own pants before morning. So could you elaborate a little more on the genetic burden? Please?

[Nurvingiel]

I don't know what this has to do with religion, but I believe the genetic burden could refer to how parts of our DNA contain redundant or useless genetic code. Is that what you meant?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
I don't know what this has to do with religion, but I believe the genetic burden could refer to how parts of our DNA contain redundant or useless genetic code. Is that what you meant?

if so how is that a genetic burden?

[Earniel]

Nurv does have a point, we're getting off topic. How about we move the discussion about this genetic burden to the thread about creationism that is bound to float around here somewhere? This is more at its place there, I think.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Eärniel
And I don't think you'll get such an imaginative apology as your example from BoP . With luck, you'll still be wearing your own pants before morning. So could you elaborate a little more on the genetic burden? Please?

hummph! She's no fun! I suppose I'll just have to fake-quote her to get a good one (C'mon, Bop, give me a good 'un, just for fun!)

I'll elaborate more next week - don't like to do too much "work" on Sundays

Also, I'll actually be visiting the Creation Research Institute in a week or so, with my son's 7th grade science class. I've talked to people there, but have never been there - should be interesting. I have some questions to ask that I got from you guys

[Rían]

Originally posted by Janny
St. Thomas Aquinas spoke of 'not spilling the seed' but this is not actually, as far as I know, explicitly in scripture, not sure if it was an issue in Biblical times.

But in the "spilling the seed" incident, which is in Genesis 38, it's CLEAR that Onan "spilled his seed" in order to not give offspring to his dead brother's line, and that's why God killed him, in addition to his brother, who was evil. It's not a matter of birth control. Onan "knew that the offspring would not be his", so he did that "in order not to give offspring to his brother." They must have hated each other for Onan to do this.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
But in the "spilling the seed" incident, which is in Genesis 38, it's CLEAR that Onan "spilled his seed" in order to not give offspring to his dead brother's line, and that's why God killed him, in addition to his brother, who was evil. It's not a matter of birth control. Onan "knew that the offspring would not be his", so he did that "in order not to give offspring to his brother." They must have hated each other for Onan to do this.

Whoa! I'm a little confused about this post... in my own words... are you saying that...
Onan jerked off so that he couldn't have sex with his dead brother's wife, so there would be no heir for his brother? eh?

[Nurvingiel]

Eww....

Anyway, I have a question for anyone who doesn't believe in (any) God. (I guess that means atheists, what's the difference between an atheist and an agnostic?)

What is your personal belief on the creation/initial formation of the universe, and life? I'm curious.

[Drgnslyer]

This whole not spilling the seed really makes me think of monty python for some reason.....:P

I can see where that belief would be founded from, but to be completely honest I don't see where that same belief can be held, especially given the current times.

I agree Nurv, getting pure non-believers opinion on creation myths and theroys...


*prepares for an intensely scientific reply*