Joe Carter at EO has a well documented article on how to call the bluff of most gay-marriage advocates – tell them that if they are really interested in the institution of marriage, they should push for stricter divorce laws – which will never happen, since fidelity, while a common human virtue poorly practiced, is practiced even less in gay relationships (at least, male ones). Joe provided a slew of stats, and this interesting observation from the National Review:
Suppose same-sex marriages were introduced by legislation that also
made divorce much harder to obtain. How many same-sex couples would then be rushing to join San Francisco’s wedding carnival? My suspicion is that lesbians would heavily outnumber gay
men and that there would be a great many grooms left waiting at the
municipal altar. It is not lifelong commitment that the couples are
seeking (except in moments of romantic fantasy), but the revolving door
of modern marriage with no-fault divorce.
Joe went on to comment:
Gay men–like men in
general–tend to be more promiscuous than women. Yet unlike married
heterosexual men, gay men don’t assume that taking wedding vows means
accepting sexual exclusivity.
One of the more interesting observations of the gay culture is this one:
Monogamy is [considered] a "straight" ideal that may or may not be useful in gay relationship.
The gay idea of marriage has less to do with fidelity, and more to do with social legitimization. And *because* it has less to do with fidelity, sanctioning gay marriage results in the degradation of marriage, because gay marriage won’t emphasize the most important parts of marriage – fidelity and a healthy, consistent environment for childhood development.
Related Posts:
The usual double-standard: attack gay men for the exact same behavior that straight men get a pass for. Are gay men more promiscuous than lesbians? How about are straight men more promiscuous than straight women? Or, are men (period) just more promiscuous and likely to stray from the marriage? Straight marriages have a 50% divorce rate. Why attack gays when this disaster is occurring? Why throw stones when your glass house is full of cracks already? “Covenant Marriage”? Why don’t straights push for it? (Because they don’t want it, that’s why)
What you provide above is yet another witch’s brew of generalizations and unfounded “suspicions” from the right-wing press to demonize gay people and portray us a sex-crazed perverts intent on destroying society. I see nothing to back up your assertions that gays willing to commit to marriage are any less intent on fidelity and monogamy than straights. These are just recycled stereotypes and slanders. Why not shine the light on straight marriage and its multiple disorders ranging from mental cruelty to violence to adultery to child neglect and sexual abuse? You straights obviously fall well short of your ideal of marriage perfection. Why, then, do you insist on generalizing about gays, as if each and every gay person is personally incapable of the kind of integrity and strength of character to sustain a successful marriage? This is nothing but pure bigotry. I sometimes wonder just what goes on inside the heads of straights, how they conceptualize our lives. There must be a stew of images promoted by the homophobic media – flamboyant, effeminate men on parade floats, sex club orgies, leather men, dykes on bikes, men seducing kids, etc. – as well as the personal “ick” factor. It’s like you can’t see us as human beings like yourselves, but something perverse and sub-human which can be attacked and demeaned with impugnity. There’s a kind of malignant ignorance at work here which I can’t quite get my head around. I find it hard to believe that fellow human beings can be so willingly evil.
Oh, right, I know why: you need a scapegoat to point at to blame for your own failure. And, you need to maintain this fiction that straights are somehow just inherently more virtuous and all-around better human beings than gays. You screw up the lives of children in droves through divorce, neglect, abuse, incest, out-of-wedlock births, abandonment, and just all-around bad parenting, but do you blame yourselves? NO!! You just can’t admit your own failure as human beings and, instead, project that fault onto a convenient Other. It’s pitiful, really.
I see nothing to back up your assertions that gays willing to commit to marriage are any less intent on fidelity and monogamy than straights.
If you read the article i discussed, you would see it filled with stats (albeit somewhat dated) showing that gay men are considerably more promiscuous than hetero men (or women of any stripe), and can't maintain a monogamous relationship at all, statistically speaking. And even if they have 'life partners,' sleeping around is often accepted by both partners.
The usual double-standard: attack gay men for the exact same behavior that straight men get a pass for.
I am not giving straight men a pass, I am arguing against approval of gay marriage based on just ONE of the many negative consequences, of which skyrocketing divorce (and the associated costs to society) will be one. Fighting divorce among straights is also being done in xian circles, just not by me.
to demonize gay people and portray us a sex-crazed perverts intent on destroying society
I'd say that's a decent generalization of gay men in their 20's and 30's – just replace 'intent on' with 'mindlessly'
Why not shine the light on straight marriage and its multiple disorders ranging from mental cruelty to violence to adultery to child neglect and sexual abuse?
Because no one is trying to normalize that in society. It is rightly condemned.
Why, then, do you insist on generalizing about gays, as if each and every gay person is personally incapable of the kind of integrity and strength of character to sustain a successful marriage?
Because part of our argument is that homosexuality is against nature, and the inability to maintain relationships, as well as higher rates of disease and death, is part of that argument.
And the reason we don't use the high divorce rate among heteros to argue against hetero marriage is because we don't have the associated array of mental illness and death (actually, married heteros, in general, are happier and emotionally healthier than singles or gays), as well as the biological impossibility of procreation that homosexuality has.
I sometimes wonder just what goes on inside the heads of straights, how they conceptualize our lives.
Just picture what goes on in your head when you think of yourself in comparison to adulterers, polygamists, or bestialists. Now you can stop wondering – we are grossed out by the obvious unnaturalness of it.
It's like you can't see us as human beings like yourselves, but something perverse and sub-human which can be attacked and demeaned with impugnity.
As long as you want to keep fighting to normalize your dysfunction, you'll have to put up with people attacking your sickness. No one picks on the sick person until they start raving about being ok, and being angry at everyone else for not agreeing.
There's a kind of malignant ignorance at work here which I can't quite get my head around. I find it hard to believe that fellow human beings can be so willingly evil.
Personal interaction and public policy battles are not the same. In personal interaction, we may soften our approach and be considerate, but in public debate, we need to call spades, not euphemize. That's not being uncivil. Calling evil evil is part of the public arena.
And, you need to maintain this fiction that straights are somehow just inherently more virtuous and all-around better human beings than gays.
Not at all, but unrepentant sinners are less virtuous than repentant ones.
You screw up the lives of children in droves through divorce, neglect, abuse, incest, out-of-wedlock births, abandonment, and just all-around bad parenting, but do you blame yourselves? NO!!
Obviously, you don't listen to Christian radio. All these things are decried, and the wealth of teaching and wisdom for correcting these ills overflows out of Christian culture.
But the idea here is that making gay marriage OK will just multiply and add to these woes, since gay relationships are less stable, less emotionally optimal, and based in dysfunction.
Sure, we're in the frying pan due to hetero sins, which we are addressing, but accepting, nay approving of homosexual sin will throw us into the fire.
Ellen Degeneres Vs. John McCain: Gay Marriage
McCain finally gets asked a tough question from the media. Ellen Degeneres asks a question and McCain responds with the the very pointed and nuanced argument “We have a disagreement.” He sure is being grilled by the media. How unfair! The man can’t even articulate a decent response to Ellen Degeneres. How will he fare against world leaders when Ellen can make him squirm? :(
…can’t maintain a monogamous relationship at all, statistically speaking. And even if they have ‘life partners,’ sleeping around is often accepted by both partners.
“Statistically speaking”? You must be joking! Is this under the rubric, “lies” or just “damned lies”? Your sources will do anything to make gays look bad, so why should I give any credence whatsoever to them? Just look at your slanted diction: life partners is surrounded by scare quotes; “sleeping around” is qualified by the damning “is often accepted” passive voice construction. Who accepts this? You obviously, but do any qualified observers agree? Or are there any real, solid numbers to back up your claims? Or are these just more wishful drooling on your part?
I am arguing against approval of gay marriage based on just ONE of the many negative consequences, of which skyrocketing divorce…
“Skyrocketing divorce” of straights? How is this gays fault? And how can you prove that gays will have higher divorce rates with such little data? Proof. Evidence.
to demonize gay people and portray us a sex-crazed perverts intent on destroying society
I’d say that’s a decent generalization of gay men in their 20’s and 30’s – just replace ‘intent on’ with ‘mindlessly’
Thanks for proving my contention that you, sir, are a mindless bigot and hate-monger, and will grasp at any lie, no matter how baseless or unproven, if it will provide any basis, no matter now little, for your perverse and twisted jihad.
I was going to answer the rest of your hateful idiocies, but I see now that that would only enable your mental problems. The answer quoted immediately above is enough to disqualify you from further serious consideration. You are either mentally deranged on this subject or you are willfully stupid – either way, to continue to engage you in discourse is pointless. I leave you to wallow in the greasy stupidity and hate that so obsesses you.
btw: Thanks for providing the necessary example of the type of “human being” which opposes gay people. I wish all people of good will could hear the type of lying tripe you espouse, for then we could move on and forget this ridiculous charade known as Christian “love” and “compassion.” Silver Hallide claims to know you. It must be to his eternal shame to claim such a relationship.
How will he fare against world leaders when Ellen can make him squirm? :(
Obviously, he can’t. Poor McCain! An otherwise decent man who has to give lip service to an evil and hateful position in order to keep in with his base among the wingnut christianists (eg, seeker). Of course, this cowardice on his part is enough to disqualify him from the office he seeks, but one still feels a little regret that he doesn’t have the guts to stand up to the neo-fascist xian right and truly be the “maverick” he portrays pretends to be. One could at least admire his courage.
"How will he fare against world leaders when Ellen can make him squirm? :(" –>
Its an easy thing to surrender your principles to appease. Standing for something and standing your ground is always the toughest path to take.
It was silly to go on to a show like Ellen anyway. It proves nothing, she is a lib and so is her audience. They have already swallowed the Rainbow and Unicorn flavored kool-aid. These appearances mean nothing.
Or are there any real, solid numbers to back up your claims? Or are these just more wishful drooling on your part?
Did you read the original article? It had a LONG list of documented stats. There are plenty of stats showing that the length of gay relationships are shorter, the number of partners are more, and in one study, NONE of the couples studied were monogamous more than 5 years. So YES, I do have numbers. Here’s just a couple:
“Skyrocketing divorce” of straights?
No, I never said straights, perhaps I was not clear. What I mean is that, if we start allowing gay marriages, then when we include these marriages in the stats, divorces will go up because gay relationships are even less stable than hetero ones. And the real consequence is that, since gays push for allowing children into such marriages, we will have MORE children of divorce out there. So we should be alarmed.
I’d say that’s a decent generalization of gay men in their 20’s and 30’s – just replace ‘intent on’ with ‘mindlessly’
I am not being a hatemonger. I think that’s a reasonable, though pejorative evaluation of the stats on male homosexuality to say that they are ‘sex crazed perverts mindlessly destroying society’ and themselves. I mean, with AIDS being totally preventable through abstinence and protection, gay sex practices continue to be blindingly unsafe, and promiscuity is, in general, through the roof in this population. Granted, the stat below is from 1978, but 41% of that sampmle having more than 500 sexual partners??? 500?!? SEX-CRAZED. The second stat below shows a similar, though lowered number.
The answer quoted immediately above is enough to disqualify you from further serious consideration. You are either mentally deranged on this subject or you are willfully stupid – either way, to continue to engage you in discourse is pointless.
Your choice. But you forgot the third possibility – that I am right, and you are defending the homosexual illness as normative.
for then we could move on and forget this ridiculous charade known as Christian “love” and “compassion.”
Don’t forget to forget your own ‘ridiculous charade’ that truth should be part of spirituality.
Go back to your pandering God who only loves and never tells the truth about sexual purity and mental health. Go find the Jesus that never got angry at hypocrites and liars – and not just religious ones. He addressed ALL when he said ‘Repent! For the Kingdom of God is at hand – if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out! For it is better to go into heaven without an eye than to go to hell whole.’ Of course, that last line is a figure of speech, but you get the picture.
I wish all people of good will could hear the type of lying tripe you espouse,
You mistake truth-telling for bad will, and truth for tripe. Heaven help you.
Hi Seeker:
You made a couple of points that I think need response:
Louis: I see nothing to back up your assertions that gays willing to commit to marriage are any less intent on fidelity and monogamy than straights.
Seeker: If you read the article i discussed, you would see it filled with stats (albeit somewhat dated) showing that gay men are considerably more promiscuous than hetero men (or women of any stripe), and can’t maintain a monogamous relationship at all, statistically speaking. And even if they have ‘life partners,’ sleeping around is often accepted by both partners.
I’ll assume the stats you provided are accurate. The article concedes that lesbian relationships display more fidelity than gay male relationships. So suppose the high rate of promiscuity is a function of maleness, not gayness. Suppose the reason straight relationships display less promiscuity than gay male relationships is because nonpromiscuous females act as a brake on potential promiscuity. If so, a lot of possibilities obtain. It could be that gay male promiscuity is likely to be less harmful than straight promiscuity, since gay males are less likely to be jealous about it, and gay males are less likely than straight couples to have children afftected by the divorce. Or it could be that if there were a gay institution that promotes monogamy the way straight marriage does, there would be more social pressure for monogamy and gay monogamy would increase. Either way, I don’t see why we should deny the marriage right to INDIVIDUAL gay men and women, no more than we would deny the right of man and women who previously have had multiple sex partners to marry.
to demonize gay people and portray us a sex-crazed perverts intent on destroying society
I’d say that’s a decent generalization of gay men in their 20’s and 30’s – just replace ‘intent on’ with ‘mindlessly’
I have to say this comment of yours seems extremely bigoted.
Why not shine the light on straight marriage and its multiple disorders ranging from mental cruelty to violence to adultery to child neglect and sexual abuse?
Because no one is trying to normalize that in society. It is rightly condemned.
I think you miss Louis’ point. The problems Louis mentioned about straight marriage are far more damaging to society than any problems that gay relationships might pose, just due to numbers if nothing else. It seems to me that too many Christians focus on gay sins because that allows them to self-righteously ignore their own.
Why, then, do you insist on generalizing about gays, as if each and every gay person is personally incapable of the kind of integrity and strength of character to sustain a successful marriage?
Because part of our argument is that homosexuality is against nature, and the inability to maintain relationships, as well as higher rates of disease and death, is part of that argument.
This is a continuing minor irritant of mine. Gay relationships are clearly not against nature because if they were they would not exist the universe with its physical laws. The opposite of natural is supernatural, and homosexuality is NOT a magical power that can violate the laws of the universe. I do not recall ever making the choice to be straight; I was attracted to females from as early as I can remember. I could not be sexually aroused by a man. For those who are, their homosexual orientation is BY DEFINITION natural.
your friend
Keith
And the reason we don’t use the high divorce rate among heteros to argue against hetero marriage is because we don’t have the associated array of mental illness and death (actually, married heteros, in general, are happier and emotionally healthier than singles or gays), as well as the biological impossibility of procreation that homosexuality has.
Don’t waste your time, Keith. stinker is incapable of even a modicum of fairness on this issue. He is intent on scapegoating gays for society’s ills and excusing straights no matter what the facts. His “studies” invariably come from biased sources – usually christianist – using incomplete data and suspicious protocols. In fact, I find it hypocritical that he relies so heavily on this spurious science to back up his prejudice when he consistently disparages science when addressing evolution and other matters. I guess he just doesn’t want to admit the obvious: that his beliefs regarding hx are religion-based. Just look at the irrelevancies he conjures up above:
Go back to your pandering God who only loves and never tells the truth about sexual purity and mental health. Go find the Jesus that never got angry at hypocrites and liars – and not just religious ones. He addressed ALL when he said ‘Repent! For the Kingdom of God is at hand – if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out! For it is better to go into heaven without an eye than to go to hell whole.’ Of course, that last line is a figure of speech, but you get the picture.
and the kicker,
Heaven help you.
To this I say, so what? Who cares what your superstitious and sad adherence to this discredited religion? Why don’t you call upon Thor or Zeus to condemn me? Who wants your evil, hateful “god” who condemns unjustly like the vicious tyrant he is. In fact, come to think of it, this “god” you worship is a perfect image of you, stinker, a pure projection of the evil blackness of your own heart.
Finally, stinker’s refusal to take into account the malign effects that homophobia has on gay people and, instead, his blaming his victims is inhuman and cruel and intellectually indefensible. He just can’t concede that there are gay people, decent and with integrity, who form families, and that there are plenty of straights who conform to his worse fantasies about gay people. He is irrational and hard-hearted, and fits the very definition of a hate-monger and bigot of the worst kind. Take my advice, Keith, and don’t bother to reason with him. The only language people like him understand is the fist.
Either way, I don’t see why we should deny the marriage right to INDIVIDUAL gay men and women, no more than we would deny the right of man and women who previously have had multiple sex partners to marry.
As I said, the reason I quote promiscuity stats is not to say that the promiscuous should not get married, but as an ancillary piece of data showing that homosexual relationships are much more unstable than hetero.
And what does that indicate? I suggest that
(1) along with other indicators, it supports the contention that gay marriage will lead to plenty of gay divorces. Doesn’t that sound like a reasonable expectation?
(2) Due to this instability, children should probably NOT be placed in gay homes.
(3) Along with other studies showing higher mental illness, substance abuse, disease, and mortality among gays, this indicates to me that those who claim that homosexuality is against nature and unhealthy may be correct. And if so, normalizing homosexuality by giving it the honor of calling it marriage is a bad social move.
I have to say this comment of yours seems extremely bigoted.
You are correct that I am making a value judgment on those who have unusually high numbers of sexual partners. And while there may be some exceptions, the general perception of young gay men is that they are horn dogs, visiting bathrooms and bath houses for anonymous sex, and medicating their hurts with sexual excess.
Are all gay men like that? No. Are many? Anyone who doubts that is not really looking. Are MOST? Well, studies like the ones I quoted show that nearly HALF of one sample of these men had over 500 – FIVE HUNDRED – sexual partners.
That is astounding. Let me at least say that those who live like that most certainly could be described as sex-crazed. And by the way, since this kind of behavior, along with drug use, not to mention the dangers of anal sex in general, spreads disease like wildfire, I would conclude that such people ARE mindlessly (or selfishly, or vengefully, or ignorantly) destroying themsvelves and society.
I think that you use ‘bigoted’ way too loosely, like many liberals who call such things ‘hateful.’ When you meet real hate, you’ll wish you weren’t so easy with heavy handed insults.
Those who condemn homosexuality and promiscuity as sinful and sick will always be called bigots. It comes with the territory.
The problems Louis mentioned about straight marriage are far more damaging to society than any problems that gay relationships might pose, just due to numbers if nothing else. It seems to me that too many Christians focus on gay sins because that allows them to self-righteously ignore their own.
Who says those things are *more* destructive? More potentially destructive than telling our kids that high risk behaviors and injurious and anti-nature self-concepts and dysfunctions are normal?
As I said, plenty of Christians focus on these other areas, but the reason I and others focus on homosexuality is because no one is lobbying to make adultery, promiscuity and divorce normal and healthy, legally speaking (they are popularizing it through the media).
And btw, Christians do decry divorce, adultery, and promiscuity.
There are plenty of fronts on which we must defend the family. I prefer this one because the lies of gay-activists are so pervasive, pernicious, and offensive to common sensibility and God (remember Romans 1 – the acceptance of homosexuality is evidence that a culture has moved past the acceptance of hetero promiscuity, bad enough, to the depth of moral depravity).
Gay relationships are clearly not against nature because if they were they would not exist the universe with its physical laws.
Again, the use of the term ‘nature’ is problematic. When I use it, I mean what is INTENDED, not what exists. That is, what leads to health and happiness, in general, is what is intended.
By natural, I do not mean ‘occurring in nature.’ I mean, infanticide and murder exist in nature. When I say ‘against nature,’ I mean against the design and healthy use of the organism. Death itself is ‘unnatural’ in that it is not intended by God, and we rightly mourn the death of people.
We should also mourn the abuse of our bodies and souls through all sexual sins, dysfunctional self-concepts (not seeing ourselves as God created us), and the sinful actions of others against us.
I do not recall ever making the choice to be straight; I was attracted to females from as early as I can remember. I could not be sexually aroused by a man. For those who are, their homosexual orientation is BY DEFINITION natural.
I disagree. I would say that people unconsciously choose all kinds of coping mechanisms and warped self-concepts during early childhood development. Do they remember doing it? No. Conscious memory doesn’t really even start till around age 3, yet all kind of developmental ‘decisions’ are made in reaction to one’s environment.
So when someone says “I’ve always felt this way,” that’s not excuse for not dealing with the issues now that we are adults.
He is intent on scapegoating gays for society’s ills and excusing straights no matter what the facts.
You read that in, but that is not the case at all. Heteros share responsibility for what’s wrong in society, but those who want to norm homosexuality, be they striaght or gay, are adding to soceity’s ills. As Christians, we are to ‘reprove the works of darknes,’ and sexual sins like adultery, promiscuity, and homosexuality, are some of those works.
Who wants your evil, hateful “god” who condemns unjustly like the vicious tyrant he is. In fact, come to think of it, this “god” you worship is a perfect image of you, stinker, a pure projection of the evil blackness of your own heart.
Let me correct this paragraph for you:
“Who wants your evil, truthful “god” who condemns justly like the holy God he is. In fact, come to think of it, this “god” you worship is a perfect image of you, stinker, a pure projection of the holiness and truth taking root in your own heart.
Refusal to [see] the effects that homophobia has on gay people and, instead, his blaming his victims is inhuman and cruel and intellectually indefensible.
Gays certainly are victims, but by refusing to face their dysfunction, but instead, trying to convince themselves and us that their illness is normal, they are selfishly, childishly, and hoplessly dooming themselves and others who listen to them to a life apart from a holy and loving God, and they are hurting our children, culture, and nation.
I understand that negative judgments on gays pushes them away when perhaps we should be more compassionate, but to somehow think that such love means lying about homosexuality’s roots, fruits, and sinfulness, would make me a liar like you, Louis.
To be called a liar by a snake like you is a mark of distinction. You are beyond being a liar, stinker – you are evil, dangerous, scum. I’d love to put my fist in your face.
Either way, I don’t see why we should deny the marriage right to INDIVIDUAL gay men and women, no more than we would deny the right of man and women who previously have had multiple sex partners to marry.
As I said, the reason I quote promiscuity stats is not to say that the promiscuous should not get married, but as an ancillary piece of data showing that homosexual relationships are much more unstable than hetero.
I am not making my point clearly. Let me try again. What you data at most says is that on average gay male couples are more likely to be unfaithful and break apart than straight couples (The data doesn’t say anything about the stability of female gay couples). But this doesn’t take into account any individual factors that might make a specific gay male couple more stable than the average. My objection was to the implication that because (supposedly) gay male couples are very unstable we ought not permit gay marriage–that seems to me to punish stable couples because of the way unstable couples behave.
And what does that indicate? I suggest that
(1) along with other indicators, it supports the contention that gay marriage will lead to plenty of gay divorces. Doesn’t that sound like a reasonable expectation?
Assuming again your stats are accurate, this would be true.
(2) Due to this instability, children should probably NOT be placed in gay homes.
I’m not so sure about that, even granting your thesis. It seems to me that all adoptions should be judged on a case-by-case basis.
(3) Along with other studies showing higher mental illness, substance abuse, disease, and mortality among gays, this indicates to me that those who claim that homosexuality is against nature and unhealthy may be correct. And if so, normalizing homosexuality by giving it the honor of calling it marriage is a bad social move.
Since anti-gay hostility is a plausible explanation for those pathologies, it seems to me as likely that your solution would merely increase the problem–you’d be throwing gasoline on a raging fire.
Those who condemn homosexuality and promiscuity as sinful and sick will always be called bigots. It comes with the territory.
And sometimes those charges will be on target.
The problems Louis mentioned about straight marriage are far more damaging to society than any problems that gay relationships might pose, just due to numbers if nothing else. It seems to me that too many Christians focus on gay sins because that allows them to self-righteously ignore their own.
Who says those things are *more* destructive? More potentially destructive than telling our kids that high risk behaviors and injurious and anti-nature self-concepts and dysfunctions are normal?
As I said, plenty of Christians focus on these other areas, but the reason I and others focus on homosexuality is because no one is lobbying to make adultery, promiscuity and divorce normal and healthy, legally speaking (they are popularizing it through the media).
I think it is obviously the case that heterosexual misbehavior causes much more damage to other people than homosexuality (allegedly) does. The gays make up about 2-5% of the population, so gay males (the group that your study claims is so problematic) would be about half of that. You point out that Christians decry heterosexual bad behavior, but they don’t do as much about it as they try to do about gay marriage. I stand by my suspicion as to why.
Gay relationships are clearly not against nature because if they were they would not exist the universe with its physical laws.
Again, the use of the term ‘nature’ is problematic. When I use it, I mean what is INTENDED, not what exists. That is, what leads to health and happiness, in general, is what is intended.
By natural, I do not mean ‘occurring in nature.’ I mean, infanticide and murder exist in nature. When I say ‘against nature,’ I mean against the design and healthy use of the organism. Death itself is ‘unnatural’ in that it is not intended by God, and we rightly mourn the death of people.
Your argument about design won’t carry much weight with non-theists, all it will do is poison the discussion. But since I agree with you about God designing things for his purposes, my response will be a little different. Things often have dual uses. For example, I use butter knives to pry open the cover to the lights in our bathroom–it’s a perfect tool for such a use. I think it would be kooky to call that an “unnatural use of a butter knife. The same is true about the human body. Our sexual function was designed IMO in part to motivate reproduction, but IMO it was also designed to bring us pleasure on its own. God’s pretty slick and efficient, it seems to me. So when you say that gay sex is unnatural, you are not making a scientific observation, your are simply stating your religious belief that God opposes homosexuality. The problem with that claim is that your argument pretends to be scientific and objective. IMO you are misusing science, which is a minor irritant to me.
I do not recall ever making the choice to be straight; I was attracted to females from as early as I can remember. I could not be sexually aroused by a man. For those who are, their homosexual orientation is BY DEFINITION natural.
I disagree. I would say that people unconsciously choose all kinds of coping mechanisms and warped self-concepts during early childhood development…
A quibble: I don’t agree that the word “choice” should be applied to an unconscious act. People make all kinds of choices, and quite frequently those choices lead to bad and unintended consequences, but I think it is a corruption of the word “choice” to say the person “chose” those unintended consequences. This is not to say the person isn’t morally responsible for those consequences. My complaint is that the vocabulary misleads more than it clarifies.
That and I don’t agree with you at all about gays:-)
your friend
Keith
Louis wrote: to demonize gay people and portray us a sex-crazed perverts intent on destroying society
stinker:
I’d say that’s a decent generalization of gay men in their 20’s and 30’s – just replace ‘intent on’ with ‘mindlessly’
*
Because part of our argument is that homosexuality is against nature, and the inability to maintain relationships, as well as higher rates of disease and death, is part of that argument.
*
Just picture what goes on in your head when you think of yourself in comparison to adulterers, polygamists, or bestialists. Now you can stop wondering – we are grossed out by the obvious unnaturalness of it.
*
I would conclude that such people ARE mindlessly (or selfishly, or vengefully, or ignorantly) destroying themselves and society.
***
Compare:
Insidious Jews spread disease like rats
“In this way, they (the rats) spread disease, plague, leprosy, typhoid fever, cholera, dysentery, and so on. They are cunning, cowardly, and cruel, and are found mostly in large packs. Among the animals, they represent the rudiment of an insidious and underground destruction – just like the Jews among human beings.”- Nazi propaganda film, “The Eternal Jew”
*
Parasitical Jews 1% of population, responsible for most of crime
“This parasitical Jewish race is responsible for most international crime. In 1932, Jews, only 1 per cent of the world’s population, accounted for … 47 per cent of crooked games of chance – 82 percent of international crime organizations – 98 percent of prostitution.” – Nazi propaganda film, “The Eternal Jew”
*
Jews are abnormal
“The Jew is interested instinctively in all that is abnormal and depraved. He seeks to disrupt the people’s healthy judgment.” – Nazi propaganda film, “The Eternal Jew”
*
Jews are unnatural, perverted, pathological
“What he [a Jew] calls ‘art’ must titillate his degenerate nerves. A smell of foulness and disease must pervade it. It must be unnatural, grotesque, perverted or pathological.” – Nazi propaganda film, “The Eternal Jew”
**
I think the parallels are exact: Nazi anti-semitic propaganda and stinker’s (and other christianist) anti-gay rhetoric. If he and his ilk were to have their way, what result would we see? The arguments are in place, as they were in 1930’s Germany, and we all know what followed. This is why I name stinker evil, for his ideas and convictions have been seen before.
Keith:
“Things often have dual uses. For example, I use butter knives to pry open the cover to the lights in our bathroom–it’s a perfect tool for such a use. I think it would be kooky to call that an “unnatural use of a butter knife.” –>
By its definition, its a butter knife and not a pry bar, true? A man by definition is a man, correct? To use a butter knife as an example in comparison to the human body may be a poor comparison here. I think there is more at stake in the bigger picture. The scriptures speak out on unnatural uses of the human body. What was being spoken of in those cases?
Seeker is approaching the topic here as a Christian and pastor(i am guessing here)?
He will state it as the Bible see’s it, along with shades from his sect of Christianity. And this is our right and duty.
As a Christian, I look at homosexuality the same way as he. On the other hand, as an American and as one who see’s the Constitution of the United States as man’s greatest single document, I believe that Louis has the Right to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.
We could use our forehead for a hammer, but the repercussions may be costly. But, we have the right to it.
The mix of religion and politics is nearly impossible IMHO, as we have seen so well during this Presidential election cycle.
Keith:
“Things often have dual uses. For example, I use butter knives to pry open the cover to the lights in our bathroom–it’s a perfect tool for such a use. I think it would be kooky to call that an “unnatural use of a butter knife.” –>
By its definition, its a butter knife and not a pry bar, true? A man by definition is a man, correct? To use a butter knife as an example in comparison to the human body may be a poor comparison here. I think there is more at stake in the bigger picture. The scriptures speak out on unnatural uses of the human body. What was being spoken of in those cases?
Seeker is approaching the topic here as a Christian and pastor(i am guessing here)?
He will state it as the Bible see’s it, along with shades from his sect of Christianity. And this is our right and duty.
As a Christian, I look at homosexuality the same way as he. On the other hand, as an American and as one who see’s the Constitution of the United States as man’s greatest single document, I believe that Louis has the Right to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.
We could use our forehead for a hammer, but the repercussions may be costly. But, we have the right to it.
The mix of religion and politics is nearly impossible IMHO, as we have seen so well during this Presidential election cycle.
I think the parallels are exact: Nazi anti-semitic propaganda and stinker’s (and other christianist) anti-gay rhetoric. If he and his ilk were to have their way, what result would we see? The arguments are in place, as they were in 1930’s Germany, and we all know what followed.
You keep telling yourself that, but hardly anyone believes such nonsense. It’s like Rosie O not being able to tell the difference between Jerry Falwell and Islamic fundamentalists – on the surface, it seems possible, but anything more than a surface evaluation and such fearmongering melts away.
Liberal prescriptive secularism, with its criminalization of free speech and blasphemy laws (a.k.a. hate speech laws), its domineering and bullying of free inquiry in science (anti ID), and its justification of infanticide (it’s only a blob of cells, don’t tell me what to do with my body) is much more fascist and murderous than Falwell or my ‘christianist’ views ever were.
Yes, Hitler attacked liberals too. Do you wish to supply us with any more parallels to establish your nazi bonafides?
Your argument about design won’t carry much weight with non-theists, all it will do is poison the discussion. But since I agree with you about God designing things for his purposes, my response will be a little different.
I’m not sure, then, how non-theists will determine morality. I would at least argue that something is morally bad if it hurts the people that do it, and worse if it hurts others. Homosexuality fairly clearly does the first, and I have argued, is not good for childhood development.
But how would YOU determine of, for example, anal sex is within the purpose of God? And would you use the bible at all to determine such morality?
Yes, Hitler attacked liberals too. Do you wish to supply us with any more parallels to establish your nazi bonafides?
Classic logical fallacy. Hitler taught that 1+1=2. Do you?
Hitler attacked the church, and so do you, therefore, you must be a fasist!
I just feel that it is clear that, while fundamentalists of all stripes can be controlling, on both left and right, it seems that in our country, the LEFT is much more fascist in its current level of legal and professional bullying, if not murder of children, yet they defend themselves by declaring that christians are dangerous!
What’s worse, people believe them. But historically speaking, the ideas we associate with the American political left have much more in common with fascism than the religious right.
I’ve already demonstrated how your thinking and rhetoric parallels that of the Nazis (talk about logical fallacies!), so it’s not a big leap to see your hatred for liberals in the same light. Note that I don’t think you are a Nazi, I just think you think the same way and use the same rhetoric. I’m sure your “ultimate solution” would have different characteristics: instead of concentration camps, forced labor, and mass extermination you would employ confinement to mental hospitals, forced “treatment” (consisting of chemical castration and shock therapy), bullied conversion to xianity, loss of jobs and housing, removal of all legislation protecting civil rights, and forced return to the closet. Though not a showy as the Nazi tactics, the Christian solution would be just as lethal (as has been proven by past Christian Solutions which included imprisonment, torture, and execution).
Why should gays trust people like you to be any different? Indeed, why should we try to see your rhetoric as any different from that of the Nazis? “Unnatural” “Perversion” “Abomination” “Spreader of disease” “Threat to children” “Destroyers of society and the family” “Enemies of God” – we’ve heard all this before, many times over, and with equally lethal results. When you protest otherwise, we just don’t believe you. We reject your protestations of benevolence as lies and prevarications. The fascism you espouse is that of the heterosexual dictatorship.
You really are a snake, seeker. There can be no reasonable response to you and your ilk but determined and relentless opposition and utter contempt.
Hi Seeker:
From before: KEITH: Your argument about design won’t carry much weight with non-theists, all it will do is poison the discussion. But since I agree with you about God designing things for his purposes, my response will be a little different…
I’m not sure, then, how non-theists will determine morality. I would at least argue that something is morally bad if it hurts the people that do it, and worse if it hurts others. Homosexuality fairly clearly does the first, and I have argued, is not good for childhood development.
The philosophical grounding of morality on non-theism is a separate issue that I expect I agree with you about. But I would question the scientific validity of your conclusion that homosexuality causes the harm that your sources claim is correlated with it. The higher rates of bad things that your sources claim obtain and blame on homosexuality could easily be the result of homophobia instead of homosexuality. The data cited could just as well support the liberal and show the conservative view to be profoundly cruel.
But how would YOU determine of, for example, anal sex is within the purpose of God? And would you use the bible at all to determine such morality?
I don’t think proper use of the Bible includes using it as an encylopedia of moral information. IMO what makes something morally significant is the inner attitude of the moral agent, not the act itself. If a sociopath discovered in the Bible that steal was immoral his refusing to steal so he could avoid divine punishment wouldn’t even count as behaving morally–being smart enough not to avoid being punished isn’t a moral act. I think your question presupposes an improper exigesis. How does one determine the morality of a sex act or any other act? You either already know it or you don’t, even if you are able to fool yourself into ignoring your conscience.
your friend
Keith
The higher rates of bad things that your sources claim obtain and blame on homosexuality could easily be the result of homophobia instead of homosexuality.
Except that I provided studies from Scandanavian countries where homosexuality is NOT pilloried, and the same assertions regarding increased disease hold.
You are correct, however, that I have only shown correlation and not causation. However, we do have proposed models for such causation, and therapy models based on them, which in time should show if the ‘dysfunction’ model works (and Spitzer has shown in his review of the research that it may be working).
Additionally, a superficial pattern analysis, comparing homosexuality with other similar known coping methods or addictions/dysfunctions shows, I believe, a similar pattern of association with related disorders, and similar addiction and recovery characteristics.
IMO what makes something morally significant is the inner attitude of the moral agent, not the act itself.
But sincerity alone is not good enough to determine morality. What if Hitler sincerely believed he was helping the human race. The truth is, both motive AND action are relevant.
How does one determine the morality of a sex act or any other act?
There is more than one way, but the simplest non-religious one is, does it cause physical or emotional harm to one’s self or another?
By this measure, promiscuity, adultery, and homosexuality all come out as “yes.”
Interestingly, polygamy does not. However, as Christians, we can also refer to the scriptures to determine morality.
And as I have said, not all moral issues are of equal gravity, nor do all require legislation. It is a sin to murder, and a sin to withhold good from those who need it. I would make the first illegal, the second, not – though many libs would try to force me to give my money to the poor through their programs, i would not force others to give to my charities via government.
HI Seeker:
The higher rates of bad things that your sources claim obtain and blame on homosexuality could easily be the result of homophobia instead of homosexuality.
Except that I provided studies from Scandanavian countries where homosexuality is NOT pilloried, and the same assertions regarding increased disease hold.
I guess I’d need to see statistics that showed that gays in Scandinavia are not pilloried. I suspect that they are not as bashed as here, but not bashed at all? I find that difficult to believe.
IMO what makes something morally significant is the inner attitude of the moral agent, not the act itself.
But sincerity alone is not good enough to determine morality. What if Hitler sincerely believed he was helping the human race. The truth is, both motive AND action are relevant.
I didn’t quite say that it was sincerity that determined morality. All I said was that it was attitude. It seems to me that in the case of Hitler, if he sincerely believed the Jews were vermin who needed destroying, this attitude would be the thing that made his behavior toward them immoral. If Hitler sincerely believed he was helping the Jews by murdering then he wasn’t acting immorally, he was just deluded. Likewise, if Hitler wanted to destroy the Jews but was so deluded that he believed that treating them decently would destroy them, his behavior would be immoral.
How does one determine the morality of a sex act or any other act?
There is more than one way, but the simplest non-religious one is, does it cause physical or emotional harm to one’s self or another?
By this measure, promiscuity, adultery, and homosexuality all come out as “yes.”
The cause of the alleged harm is of course the question. I am skeptical of your claims as well as of your sources.
Interestingly, polygamy does not. However, as Christians, we can also refer to the scriptures to determine morality.
And as I have said, not all moral issues are of equal gravity, nor do all require legislation. It is a sin to murder, and a sin to withhold good from those who need it…
IMO the test for legal prohibitions is twofold. An act is properly prohibited if (a) people do not have the RIGHT to perform the act and (b) prohibiting the act promotes the general welfare. Laws against murder satisfy the test, but the REASON we have a RIGHT to prohibit murder is NOT that we have a right to force moral behavior, it is that murder hurts other people.
…I would make the first illegal, the second, not – though many libs would try to force me to give my money to the poor through their programs, i would not force others to give to my charities via government…
I don’t agree that liberal welfare programs constitute “forc[ing you] to give [your] money to the poor”. IMO your taxes are the debt you owe to to the collective population because the wealth you are able to gain is dependent on the social system you live in. The economic rules determine what you get based on the economic actions you perform, much like the number of points you get in a football game depends on the rules of football. You earn 3 points for a field goal and 6 for a touchdown because those are the rules–if the NFL changed the rules then you’d earn different points for those same activities. Owing taxes is built into the economic rules, so you cannot properly say that taxation “takes” anything from you that you have a right to keep. Also built into the rules is OUR right to use OUR tax revenues the way we democratically decide to.
your friend
Keith
Hi Ben:
By its definition, its a butter knife and not a pry bar, true? A man by definition is a man, correct?
The definition is the definition of a word, but the point is there is nothing wrong with using a butter knife as a pry bar. You say that’s a poor comparison; I’ll address that suggestion below.
To use a butter knife as an example in comparison to the human body may be a poor comparison here. I think there is more at stake in the bigger picture. The scriptures speak out on unnatural uses of the human body. What was being spoken of in those cases?
IMO Paul’s argument was based on his flawed notion of “unnatural” sex acts. He was depending on the connotation of “unnatural” as being bad, arguing from prejudice against that which is outside the “norm”. Now I am not quite sure that what Paul was condemning was covenantal, marriage-like gay relationships, and I am not arguing that Paul was wrong to condemn the acts he was actually speaking of. All I am saying is that IMO his argument was flawed.
Seeker is approaching the topic here as a Christian and pastor(i am guessing here)?
He will state it as the Bible see’s it, along with shades from his sect of Christianity. And this is our right and duty.
I agree, but IMO that’s all of his argument; his attempt to argue against homosexuality WITHOUT using his religious beliefs fails I think.
As a Christian, I look at homosexuality the same way as he. On the other hand, as an American and as one who see’s the Constitution of the United States as man’s greatest single document, I believe that Louis has the Right to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.
We could use our forehead for a hammer, but the repercussions may be costly. But, we have the right to it.
As a Christian I believe that most Christian condemnation of homosexuality is the sinful refusal to follow Christ’s admonition to judge ourselves before we judge others, but I agree that Seeker has a right (and a duty) to preach what he believes to be true.
The mix of religion and politics is nearly impossible IMHO, as we have seen so well during this Presidential election cycle.
Yeah, we too often place ourselves in the place of God, trying to use the government to force other people to refrain from (what we claim) is sin. I think this applies to those of us on the Christian left as well as those on the Christian right.
your friend
Keith
The cause of the alleged harm is of course the question. I am skeptical of your claims as well as of your sources.
I understand why you might be skeptical of my claims, but if my sources are peer reviewed journals, why are you skeptical? Don’t you trust science? ;)
If you are like me, you don’t trust scienTISTS, nor the people who spin the data they produce. But still, if it looks like they did their job, it doesn’t matter of NBC or FOX, NARTH or PFLAG brings the study to our attention, it’s whether or not the studies were well done.
I don’t agree that liberal welfare programs constitute “forc[ing you] to give [your] money to the poor”. IMO your taxes are the debt you owe to to the collective population because the wealth you are able to gain is dependent on the social system you live in.
The founders limited the functions of government in order to prevent your argument above to lead to socialism. Just because you think drug addicts are more important than stray dogs or homeless vets doesn’t mean that you should force me to give to your priorities. Just be careful in how you justify your enforced compassion.
Owing taxes is built into the economic rules, so you cannot properly say that taxation “takes” anything from you that you have a right to keep.
I am not arguing against taxes, just the misuse of them – I don’t look to government to be the savior of the people. All too often, government handouts keep people in dependence rather than fostering self-respect, hard work, and personal responsibility.
hi Seeker:
I don’t agree that liberal welfare programs constitute “forc[ing you] to give [your] money to the poor”. IMO your taxes are the debt you owe to to the collective population because the wealth you are able to gain is dependent on the social system you live in.
The founders limited the functions of government in order to prevent your argument above to lead to socialism. Just because you think drug addicts are more important than stray dogs or homeless vets doesn’t mean that you should force me to give to your priorities. Just be careful in how you justify your enforced compassion.
I do not believe in forced compassion; that’s not what’s going on with the welfare state (as I argued above).
The founders were rich and powerful so it is unsurprising that they uncritically accepted as axioms the property rules that benefited them. That doesn’t refute the argument I gave. In fact, socialism would be a legitimate economic rules system; whether or not to change the rules to socialist rules depends on whether or not socialist rules are good for the general welfare.
Owing taxes is built into the economic rules, so you cannot properly say that taxation “takes” anything from you that you have a right to keep.
I am not arguing against taxes, just the misuse of them – I don’t look to government to be the savior of the people. All too often, government handouts keep people in dependence rather than fostering self-respect, hard work, and personal responsibility.
The same can be said of capitalist rules, with the victims being dependent on the decisions of the capitalists. I’m not so sure that people can even BE victims of government handouts–nobody has to take a handout that will make them worse off than otherwise.
your friend
Keith
In fact, socialism would be a legitimate economic rules system; whether or not to change the rules to socialist rules depends on whether or not socialist rules are good for the general welfare.
What is frightening about that sentiment is that it has little concept of limiting government, and says nothing of individual protection from government intrusion (Bill of Rights stuff). Just because it is ‘good for society’ doesn’t mean the government should force us to do it.
Wealth redistribution schemes need to be limited so that they don’t inhibit risk taking, hard work, and personal reward for initiative. This is what happens in Soviet countries, where people’s reward for such virtues is taken away for the benefit of others.
I do not believe in forced compassion; that’s not what’s going on with the welfare state
I agree only in that it is not usually compassion at all, because we are often not fostering the qualities we really want in people – hard work, self-reliance, personal responsibility. Workfare, I am good with. Handouts that encourage people to game the system by having more children out of wedlock for more money, or rewarding them for not working, no way.
But I do think that, beyond some basics, it can be forced ‘compassion,’ and compassion based on someone else’s priorities – and whatever the flavor of the month is – welfare, social security, drug prevention, animal protection, education, environment.
While all of these things are important, I deeply believe that we need principles that help us determine which of these are within or outside of the scope of government, and even when in scope, we need to limit that scope to what government does best.
Disaster preparedness, for example? Maybe not – maybe it is better to have some government coordination of faith-based groups who are already on the ground rather than trying to put together our own bureaucratic organization that mimics what’s out there, just with incredibly less efficiency.
The same can be said of capitalist rules, with the victims being dependent on the decisions of the capitalists.
Yes, I agree, but what we are basically doing is balancing power – but do we err on the side of freedom (capitalism), depending on people’s virtue to some extent, or do we lean towards control (socialism), trusting in them not at all.
I think socialism and communism are one extreme, with libertarianism at the other. I think to the left of libertarianism, far short of socialism, is where we should be. But we can’t have freedom work without virtuous citizens. But let’s err towards freedom, and then promote virtue, rather than enforcing virtue through socialism.
Berlin inaugurates memorial to Nazi’s gay victims
‘”This memorial is important from two points of view — to commemorate the victims, but also to make clear that even today, after we have achieved so much in terms of equal treatment, discrimination still exists daily,” Wowereit said as he inaugurated the memorial alongside Culture Minister Bernd Neumann.
‘Nazi Germany declared homosexuality a threat to the German race and convicted some 50,000 homosexuals as criminals. An estimated 10,000 to 15,000 gay men were deported to concentration camps, where few survived.’
Keith-
“As a Christian I believe that most Christian condemnation of homosexuality is the sinful refusal to follow Christ’s admonition to judge ourselves before we judge others, but I agree that Seeker has a right (and a duty) to preach what he believes to be true.” –>
This may be true, we are all human. I think its out of love for our fellow man that seeker speaks here though. If the Bible speaks out on a subject, and some one asks, we have a duty to answer. Again, the truth may be a bitter pill to swallow, but, well, there it is. In a world where morals are all relative and based upon personal view without the use of guidelines from a higher source, we run the very real possibility of losing are humanity.
The Bible speaks out on subjects such as these(sex, foods, etc)as a matter of cleanliness, to keep oneself well so one can have a life of better quality, and hopefully, length. So, putting your butter knife where it does not belong could have “shocking” and unintended consequences.
“I don’t agree that liberal welfare programs constitute “forc[ing you] to give [your] money to the poor”. IMO your taxes are the debt you owe to to the collective population because the wealth you are able to gain is dependent on the social system you live in.” –>
We are individuals, not members of a collective. The whole idea of the view that we are better when viewed as a sort of flock of sheep needing shepherding is to me extremely flawed when approached from the direction that the “sheep” will be shepherded by mans governmental entities. It goes against natural law that we are indeed individuals.
Regarding the ludicrous “butter knife” issue. Your contention that the body doesn’t accommodate dual uses for single part is false. Take the body parts in question: the penis or vagina. Both are used by the body to excrete waste and for sex/reproduction. Truly an odd combination, and one that has puzzled philosophers and poets for generations. God must really be a jokester.
Also, if the anus is not “designed” for sex, why does stimulating the prostate create such intense feelings of sexual pleasure? Again, the trickster God at work.
As to seeker acting out of love: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Thanks for the laugh.
Hi Ben:
We are individuals, not members of a collective. The whole idea of the view that we are better when viewed as a sort of flock of sheep needing shepherding is to me extremely flawed when approached from the direction that the “sheep” will be shepherded by mans governmental entities. It goes against natural law that we are indeed individuals.
I am not suggesting that we need shepherding by the government. WRT to government, we are the rulers, not the subject. On the other hand, we Christians ARE sheep to Jesus our Shpeherd.
Do you really think we are not part of a collective? Being part of the Body of Christ is being part of a collective, as is being an American, as is being part of a family. Do you not agree that as citizens we have certain obligations to our fellow citizens? That’s what I am talking about. All I have suggested is that property rights are analogous to the rights afforded by the rules of any game. In baseball you have the right to run past first base without being tagged out on a batted ball; ther other bases you must remain on the bag to avoid being tagged. But this right could be changed by changing the rules of the game. The same is true for your right to keep X% of your income rather than pay it to the taxman–the percentage you have a right to keep can be changed by democratically changing the rules of the economic game. The free market is a useful tool, but it isn’t a divine right. Taxation is not theft.
your friend
Keith
Hi Seeker:
The same can be said of capitalist rules, with the victims being dependent on the decisions of the capitalists.
Yes, I agree, but what we are basically doing is balancing power – but do we err on the side of freedom (capitalism),…
I’d say that it is an error to equate capitalism with freedom. In capitalism those who have to work for wages have to obey their capitalist bosses or lose their jobs–in capitalism the owners of the means of production are kings and their workers are subjects. The problem is, the word “freedom” is quite vague, a political platitude. Are we free? Free to do what? Free from what? In a laissez faire capitalist market economy the capitalist decision makers are free from government regulations, but workers are not free to change their working conditions because they are not the owners of the means of production. In a worker-controlled economic system the workers would be free to decide democratically their working conditions, but they would not be free from the economic facts that some methods of production would be unable to produce stuff that people wanted to buy. For any possible system, there are people who will be freer wrt some things and less free wrt others. Rhetoric about embracing freedom just distracts from addressing economic reality.
…depending on people’s virtue to some extent, or do we lean towards control (socialism), trusting in them not at all.
Capitalism doesn’t trust human virtue more than or less than socialism. Capitalism presupposes that people only work for their own benefit, the “invisible hand” supposedly translates people’s selfish actions into a social good. Socialism presupposes that workers owning the means of production is the best way to protect workers’ interests.
I think socialism and communism are one extreme, with libertarianism at the other. I think to the left of libertarianism, far short of socialism, is where we should be. But we can’t have freedom work without virtuous citizens. But let’s err towards freedom, and then promote virtue, rather than enforcing virtue through socialism.
I agree with most of the above. It is a mistake in my mind to treat socialism as a monolithic idea–there are many varieties of proposed socialisms, the same with capitalism. But I am not arguing here FOR socialism, I am arguing that we have a right to democratically decide the economic rules for our economic system. How much taxation and what we do with the taxes we collect are parts of the economic rules we can rightfully change. When people describe taxation as “taking someone’s wealth to give to the government” they presuppose the original holder had a right to keep the wealth; that is, they uncritically, apparently unconciously, presuppose a particular set of economic rules. All I am trying to do here is shine the light on their presuppositions.
your friend
keith
As to gay marriage, there is hope – at least here in California.
Hi Louis:
That was an amazing poll, although a single poll could be an outlier. It is an interesting fact that young people have a much more positive view toward homosexuality than do older people, so as older people die off public acceptance of homosexuality increases. We can hope that eventually (with the help of God, I’d say) bigotry vanishes.
your friend
Keith
Keith:
“WRT to government, we are the rulers, not the subject. On the other hand, we Christians ARE sheep to Jesus our Shpeherd.’ –>
This we can agree upon. And being a sheep under his capable hand, I am comforted. But allowing our personal rights(guaranteed by God)to be eroded away methodically by a gov who moves more and more into a position of a shepherd, mostly because people are ignorant or apathetic towards their own rights and freedoms, this does not comfort me.
“fellow citizens?” –>
What is the definition of this? Hardworking, taxpaying Americans? If so, I agree. Those who suck the tit and never give back? I do not see these as citizens, given that their physical/mental condition allow.
“Do you not agree that as citizens we have certain obligations to our fellow citizens?” –>
Yes, those asserted by scripture, as it boils down to this, to love our fellow man as ourselves. But that does not mean to sacrifice my own ability to keep my family(self inclusive)warm in the winter, cool in the summer, fed, clothed, spiritually cared for, etc, in order to carry that out. It all begins with me caring for myself, then my family, then my congregation, then if I can, others. This is how I understand the progression of these things as explained in the scriptures.
Also, others have the same obligations as I do, toward themselves and family. Those who fail to act responsibly in their own actions have failed to carry their own burden.It seems in earlier years(i grew up in the 70’s), before people would do stupid things, immoral things, there used to be principles and morals in place that would shame or embarrass folks into staying part of civilization. Now every excuse is made for such actions. Smiled upon and dismissed as natural. To these folks, the ones who enslave me to higher taxation by stupid actions, since they take and many many times never give back, I owe nothing.
And this is really what we are talking about with taxation, it enslaves us, we, free men, enslaved to a gov who winks and nods at those who waste MY money in the form of taxation, by creating programs to catch those who fail civilization. The waste all around, is immoral. Not me, because I kick against it and hold my gov accountable and ask to lower my tax burden.
Taxation becomes problematic when taxes become burdensome, when they interdict with my ability to carry out my God given duties.
Do you consider your self a free man? Just a question I would like to get your take on. :)
“the percentage you have a right to keep can be changed by democratically changing the rules of the economic game. The free market is a useful tool, but it isn’t a divine right. Taxation is not theft.”–>
I do have the right to keep everything I make through my toil. The gov has NO Rights Keith. None. We the people have the Rights. The free market isn’t a divine right? I would say it is, since “freedom” is not a right, but a fundamental natural law. We are free men. Any other view subjugates your freedom to something else. Our Rights are not given out by the gov like dealing a hand of cards, they are pre-supposed to exist and were given by God to man.
Keith wrote: That was an amazing poll, although a single poll could be an outlier.
Actually, this is the Field Poll which operates exclusively in CA and is usually the most accurate in measuring Californians. From what I understand, these stupid initiatives need to start off with a large lead in the polls because they lose support as the campaign wears on. It’s very encouraging that it reports that 51% oppose the anti-gay initiative now – and this was taken after the Supreme Court’s decision. The times, they are a’changin’ – at least here, in civilized CA.
Another encouraging word is, as you pointed out, the young are far more accepting. With Obama on the ticket, they’ll come out in droves to vote for hope and change and a better future. I’m sure we’ll be subjected to the same old hateful and fear-mongering campaign, but I don’t see it working beyond the fundamentalist fringe. I don’t think the new generation will be denied this time as mine was in the past. I’m with them all the way!
“at least here, in civilized CA.” –> ???
http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/los-angeles-third-world- city
“at least here, in civilized CA.” –> ???
http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/los-angeles-third-world- city
Hmmm…LA does not make for the entire state now does it?
Perhaps with all this anti-Left Coast and conservative we are better than liberal snobbery the State of California should sever all domestic economic ties from the rest of the country, secede from the Union, and overnight become the 5 largest economic power in the world. With smugness come smugness in return…I am sure that the rest of the smug snobbery of the anti-left coast establishment would stop gloating when the economic impacts hit their own pocketbooks with the absence of federal tax dollars and economic contributions from California came home to roost in their own backyard.
How ridiculous this all is. Another reason why I post comments here less and less…inbred thinking.
– S
I entirely agree with Silver. It’s a fact that more money is taken out of CA than we get in return. Poor states in the south and midwest depend on us to keep going while they denigrate and despise us. Who needs them? I’m tired of southerners and Bible-belters running things to our detriment (just look what Texas did to us during the manufactured electricity crisis a few years back). Get lost is my opinion.
“How ridiculous this all is. Another reason why I post comments here less and less…inbred thinking.”
“Get lost is my opinion.”
“California should sever all domestic economic ties from the rest of the country, secede from the Union, and overnight become the 5 largest economic power in the world.” –>
Yes, snobbery.
Nope, a just reaction.
BTW:
"secede from the Union…" –>
No need for messy secession, it seems you are being annexed.
Bill O'Reilly giving up on anti-gay marriage position? A astonishing colloquy with an anti-gay marriage advocate.
Hi Ben:
Yes, those asserted by scripture, as it boils down to this, to love our fellow man as ourselves. But that does not mean to sacrifice my own ability to keep my family(self inclusive)warm in the winter, cool in the summer, fed, clothed, spiritually cared for, etc, in order to carry that out. It all begins with me caring for myself, then my family, then my congregation, then if I can, others. This is how I understand the progression of these things as explained in the scriptures.
Our obligations as Christians go beyond our obligations as citizens, I would say. As Christians were are obligated to love our neighbor as ourselves! You agree we have an obligation to care for our fellow citizens if we can". Of course, as long as we have any non-necessities we could help others; I don't think our obligation as citizens requires us to give up all non-necessities. You seem to me to be an anarchist, so I need to clarify your position. Do you, for example, believe that we have an obligation to pay taxes to support national defense?
Also, others have the same obligations as I do, toward themselves and family. Those who fail to act responsibly in their own actions have failed to carry their own burden.It seems in earlier years(i grew up in the 70's), before people would do stupid things, immoral things, there used to be principles and morals in place that would shame or embarrass folks into staying part of civilization…
I grew up in the 70s as well, and I remember the times being rather "liberal" (to misuse the word) wrt sex and drugs.
…Now every excuse is made for such actions. Smiled upon and dismissed as natural. To these folks, the ones who enslave me to higher taxation by stupid actions, since they take and many many times never give back, I owe nothing.
Bad behavior is never justified. I don't agree with your optimistic impression of the past though; sin has been a problem since forever.
And this is really what we are talking about with taxation, it enslaves us, we, free men, enslaved to a gov who winks and nods at those who waste MY money in the form of taxation, by creating programs to catch those who fail civilization. The waste all around, is immoral. Not me, because I kick against it and hold my gov accountable and ask to lower my tax burden.
I don't agree with your broad brush ciriticism here. The capitalist economy by itself works against the family and against the hard working majority, producing great concentrations of wealth that make the Paris Hilton lifestyle possible. In whatever system there will be people who take immoral advantage, you can never design a system so perfect that people cannot take advantage.
Taxation becomes problematic when taxes become burdensome, when they interdict with my ability to carry out my God given duties.
The same is true for capitalist markets; when they make it more difficult for hardworking people to provide for their families they are problematic. The existance of those problems is what promoted the creation of the social programs you decry.
Do you consider your self a free man? Just a question I would like to get your take on. :)
All of us are free in the sense that no one can control what we choose to do, not even by threatening us with violence. A person can kill me, but he cannot make me do what he wants unless I choose to.
"the percentage you have a right to keep can be changed by democratically changing the rules of the economic game. The free market is a useful tool, but it isn't a divine right. Taxation is not theft
I do have the right to keep everything I make through my toil.
But there isn't anything you make on your own. If you live off the land you depend on land you didn't make yourself. if you have a job, you are part of a division of labor so what you make depends on what other people make.
The gov has NO Rights Keith. None.
The same as how a hammer has no rights. But we the people have a right to use the tool of government to decide the economic rules of the economic game, including tax rates.
We the people have the Rights. The free market isn't a divine right? I would say it is, since "freedom" is not a right, but a fundamental natural law.
Freedom from what? Freedom to do what? The free market like any other system restricts your freedom to do those things that are are not permitted by the system. The owners of capital own all the means of production and thus workers are obligated to obey the owners or lose their jobs. Their freedom is thus restricted. The free market is just another economic game, with rules that are decided to accomplish a purpose. The appropriate purpose for economic rules is to promote the general welfare, and we have a democratic right to decide whatever rules we think will get the job done.
your friend
Keith
We are free men. Any other view subjugates your freedom to something else. Our Rights are not given out by the gov like dealing a hand of cards, they are pre-supposed to exist and were given by God to man.
” Do you, for example, believe that we have an obligation to pay taxes to support national defense?” –>
The Preamble states as much. But, this is one of the very very few things that the Feds should dabble in, per the Constitution.
“I grew up in the 70s as well, and I remember the times being rather “liberal” (to misuse the word) wrt sex and drugs.” –>
Yes. And having two close in age older brothers, I did get to witness the culture through their lives, I being born in 1965.
“Bad behavior is never justified. I don’t agree with your optimistic impression of the past though; sin has been a problem since forever.” –>
Oh I agree. When I typed that comment, I knew it sounded as if I was saying that all badness came raining down on us in this time period. I did not mean that, what I am saying is that liberal policy makes it easy for people who do not want to live a moral life, or those who do not practice self control or do not recognize the need for personal responsibilty to keep on doing these things and perpetuating much deeper problems for future generations that pay the price culturally, socially, medically and economically(the era of free love may have been responsible for HIV/AIDS as an ex.). I live in what is called the “inner city” of a Midwestern town, I see the ravages of crime, drugs, infidelity, children with no fathers … all having a program which will catch these folks over and over again, never correcting the problems. I do not think we have a moral responsibility to keep spending hard earned tax dollars on “bridges to nowhere”.
The left believe that pouring money into the chasm will make it right. The last 50+ years have proved the opposite in my view.
“I don’t agree with your broad brush ciriticism here. The capitalist economy by itself works against the family and against the hard working majority, producing great concentrations of wealth that make the Paris Hilton lifestyle possible. In whatever system there will be people who take immoral advantage, you can never design a system so perfect that people cannot take advantage.”–>
If one works for their wealth, I am fine with that. If Paris Hilton or whomever wishes to live a life style different than mine, I do not care. She has near zero effect on me, and I do not see her taking advantage of anythin but her daddy’s money. It’s his and if that is what he want’s to do with it, more power to him(them). I have no problem with classes of wealth. It gives some who wish to strive for that to strive. But we also have the freedom to live a life in a simpler form, like myself. And the ability to make decisions on how we wish to live is easier when more money is in our pockets, not the gov coffers.
I said above:”And this is really what we are talking about with taxation, it enslaves us, we, free men…”
I do not see how you can not agree with this, if this is a point you do indeed disagree with. As more money is siphoned from us, paying for the basics and the baubles become harder. I like to spend my monies and time the way I wish, as a free man should.
“The same is true for capitalist markets; when they make it more difficult for hardworking people to provide for their families they are problematic. The existance of those problems is what promoted the creation of the social programs you decry.” –>
I do not see this, except in the recent rising gas price deal. But even at that, considering world markets, 4 dollar(3.99 per gal this morning)is cheap IMHO. But even if it did make me rearrange my budget, I would not wish the petroleum companies to be socialized -(http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/29/dont-blame-big-oil-or-arabs-for-high-gas-prices/)
Sometimes the libs mask slips … check the vid above
freedom-“All of us are free in the sense that no one can control what we choose to do, not even by threatening us with violence. A person can kill me, but he cannot make me do what he wants unless I choose to.” –>
And in other ways too … but taxation enslaves. It robs freedom of choice, limits it.
“But there isn’t anything you make on your own. If you live off the land you depend on land you didn’t make yourself. if you have a job, you are part of a division of labor so what you make depends on what other people make.” –>
If I live off the land, I am using my inheritance given to me from God, not man. And what the ground produces is mine. My sweat and toil invested, and my thanks to God for all gifts. I do have a job, born of the free market, owned by free men, ran by free men, and my pay rate is decided by what the free market will bear. And, as a free man, I have the ablity to leave this job, or to work 2 jobs or 3. No matter the artificial rules applied, I am free, they have no real hold on me.
I state: “The gov has NO Rights Keith. None.”
Keith: “The same as how a hammer has no rights. But we the people have a right to use the tool of government to decide the economic rules of the economic game, including tax rates.” –>
I trust the hammer more,:) ,but your point is taken. This is what I also believe, that we the people are the gov, that we allow it to exist, and that we have the ability to shut it down if need be, at state and fed levels.(I also believe that the states are sovreign and should control their own destinies). The feds need to be limited as originally intended.
“Freedom from what? Freedom to do what? The free market like any other system restricts your freedom to do those things that are are not permitted by the system.”–>
From oppression. Free to pursue happiness, liberty and life. Freedom to do pretty much anything I damn well please. The free market is free, I am not restricted IMO. Please give me an example of how you feel restricted.
“The owners of capital own all the means of production and thus workers are obligated to obey the owners or lose their jobs.” –>
I work in the corporate world and yes there is an owner. I must come to work and perform, with pride and accuracy in what I do, respecting the owner by my actions.
Also, I own my own small business, and have helped another youner man launch his own small IT business. My wife came from South America, taught herself English, started her own business that has grown over the last decade and a half. If one wants to work at it, these things can be accomplished. If one reflects on the life of the Messiah, we are re-assured of this. My wife and I are not restricted from anything we want to do. In our country, the oyster is there for the plucking. We are free men.
“The appropriate purpose for economic rules is to promote the general welfare, and we have a democratic right to decide whatever rules we think will get the job done.” –>
I believe that the purpose of working is to take care of ones own person, family, congregation, all others in that order and from a man’s/head of household point of view.
And yes, i do believe the states(read the people)have a right to tax themselves out of Democratic existence if they wish .. but tax(especialy business owners)the folks and they leave for other less “taxing” climes. Again, the free market at work.
We are free men. Any other view subjugates your freedom to something else. Our Rights are not given out by the gov like dealing a hand of cards, they are pre-supposed to exist and were given by God to man.
Rock on Brother.
Speaking of resisting gov't interference:
Six in 10 Americans say the government should not regulate whether gays and lesbians can marry the people they choose, a survey finds.
As same-sex couples line up to get marriage licenses in California on June 17, the USA TODAY/Gallup Poll found that 63% of adults say same-sex marriage is "strictly a private decision" between two people.
Fine with me, as long as you don't have to teach my kids that it is OK. But why not allow other unions?
"On Monday, the California secretary of state said an initiative to amend the state Constitution to define marriage as a union "between a man and a woman" will be on the ballot Nov. 4. If it passes, it would overturn a state Supreme Court ruling in May that legalized same-sex marriage. After Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage in 2004, 11 states voted on similar questions."–>
Let the people decide.
In matters of principle, I think the legislature should decide – certainly not the courts or initiatives. We should appeal to timeless principles.
The problem is, in this case, supposedly opposing principles apply. But nature speaks for itself about the unnaturalness of such an arrangement. But that doesn't tell us how we should or should not legislate.
The California legislature has twice voted to legalize gay marriage. Both times Republican Schwarzenegger vetoed the measure (thus blockading the will of the state's elected representatives – why should one man get that much power?).
Why should "the people" get to vote on my rights? Should they get to vote on your rights? Tyranny.
"Why should "the people" get to vote on my rights? Should they get to vote on your rights? Tyranny." –>
Because a gov body can become corrupt and decide things based not on State Constitutional law, but on their own biases or gain.
The "people", who will pay the tax base which supports all, gay, straight and otherwise, should have THE say in what sort of environment they live in. Leaving Constitutional rights up to be decided/granted by judges is the surest way of losing our rights. What does the state of California's Constitution say about what marriage is? What it states is THE principle and should not be violated. Violation of long standing Constitutional law is tyranny.
Actually, I think there is a balance of power here. I mean, the legislature is supposed to represent the people – so what happens when the legislature ignores the will of the people they represent? Do they have permission to do what they think is best? Yes, but if they are very out of step, perhaps voter initiatives are good.
Because we are constitutional republics, the goodness of our laws depends in large measure on the quality of our constitution. That's where the judiciary comes in – based on our founding principles (in the constitution), the judiciary CAN and MUST determine if various legislation or initiatives are unconstitutional.
The problem? Constitutions are sometimes vague, and need amending, lest they be interpreted by the current lean of the judiciary.
In this case, I think that the problem stems from an unclear state (and national) constitution on the issue. Hence, all three branches of government, plus the popular vote of the people, are now battling to figure it out.
I think that they all have a right to influence the process. But if the judiciary interprets the constitution in a way that displeases the people, then they should clarify the constitution.
In that case, the majority COULD vote against the minority, but ostensibly, they are clarifying timeless principle, and are being fair minded. If not, there is nothing you can do except suffer the consequences of an uneducated and ethically erring populace. All you can really do at that point is preach your own gospel and try to change hearts and minds.
In this case, I think that Arnold and the people are correct in denying gay marriage as a recognized union, but I also think that the judiciary is making a wrong interpretation of the constitution, which itself is not clear enough.
I think we need constitutional amendments, preferably federal, to define marriage as one man and one woman, and to protect the unborn from the murder of abortion, at least from 6 weeks (see c-ral.org).
Do I have to point out that, at this time, all three of California's branches of gov't are on record either supporting gay marriage or are against amending the state constitution to forbid it? Schwarzenegger has come out against the proposed amendment and supporting the Supremes' decision, the legislature has twice passed legislation legalizing gay marriage, and the Supremes have declared laws against it unconstitutional. All three have either been directly elected by the people or had their positions overwhelmingly ratified by the voters. The Supremes have six justices appointed by Republican governors and is known as moderate-conservative and very cautious. There is no way you can make the argument that this decision is non-reflective of the will of the people, especially as we have a representative form of gov't. It is entirely justified and legal.
Historically, the judiciary is in part in place to protect minorities from majoritarian tyranny, and we have seen this at work in CA and MA. Christians and other conservatives may not like it, but that's the case. The current attempt to override our duly-constituted government by extremist elements is, in my view, an abuse of the process. The amendment was spearheaded by two wealthy, conservative Christians who put up the money to hire professional signature collectors to put this measure on the ballot. They used churches to get signatures and, now, to support it. This also misuses the process to amend the consitution with a single-issue, social issue, and not an issue of law or government process. It is an attempt to force religious prejudice on everyone in contradiction to established political process.
Also, this amendment appeals to the lowest part of human nature, the fear of and prejudice against the Other. What would we say if such a tactic had been used to override the CA Supreme Court's past decision against mixed-race marriage laws, or against other minorities' equal treatment under the law? This is a contemptible attempt to place discrimination and prejudice in the CA Constitution using religion and bigotry as an excuse. Should it pass, it will be a tragic day for American democracy.
I wonder, what will be next on your agenda? Making gays wear pink triangles?
what a horrifying website.
Disgusting.
What a closed mind some people have.
Yes, even I continue to post here.
‘An estimated 10,000 to 15,000 gay men were deported to concentration camps, where few survived.’
Often claims about homosexuality were used by the Nazis against political opponents even when Nazis such as Ernst Roehm were openly homosexual.
At any rate, although Himmler and Roehm disputed it (based on philosophic naturalism and their political aspirations, not “the ethical code worship of the Jews”) it wasn’t a big issue per se either way. As a Gay© historian noted of this rather ridiculous argument:
Those who acquainted with what actually happened historically typically argue against propaganda:
Take a look at Nazi propaganda itself:
This is supposedly comparable to condemnation of sexual disorientations and/or support for a Christian sexual ethic? The simple fact is that the Nazis had contempt and disdain for Christian views and favored Darwinian views in general and a Darwinian sexual ethic in particular. Goebbels even argued that Christianity had infused sexuality with dishonesty or some such. Himmler may have condemned homosexuality but he did so based on Darwinism, not Christianity. Their form of propaganda was rooted in naturalism and a merging together of basic natural categories, not the “ethical code worship of the Jews.”
Ironically it is simply a historical fact that Nazis propagandists were often sexual perverts, this is why some psychologists have argued that their propaganda itself “stinks” of “unnatural, grotesque, perverted and pathological” forms of projection. The very thing that they condemned, Jews, the Jewish influence, Jewish laws of the Old Testament, etc., was their own condemnation.
Most argued that in the end the “Jewish influence” could not be excised from Christianity:
"After all, given the Darwinian creation myth…"
What an idiot this mynym guy is.
Seconded.
Mynym,
Welcome back! But I am a bit confused.
Which of these are you saying?
– that the nazis used darwinism to support killing gays?
– that many of the nazis themselves were gay?
– that my position and the nazi ones are dissimilar because I am not a Darwinian (eugenist)?
And of course, is it possible to argue that homosexuality is unnatural, unhealthy, and perhaps even incubates disease and poses a risk to the rest of society without being called a Nazi? Obviously not according to some.
They see all such arguments as Nazi arguments, even if those things be true.
But I think they make this mistake for at least three reasons.
1. They have developed the habit of the fearmongers – of turning everything into a panicky slippery slope argument, willfully ignoring counter indications.
2. They feel personally threatened when the 'victims' of moral disapproval – I suppose that as a minority, such a dread is usual, perhaps even reasonable, because the majority can do horrible things to those minorities they consider moral miscreants.
3. Being suckered into the "all monotheistic religions are murderous and bad" pseudo history of the enlightenment anti-religionists and atheists, they really do believe that modern Christianity could 'go terrorist' any time. Ignorant of the balanced and clear history of Christianity and confused by the 'Christian' politics of the RCC, they think that genuine xianity will metastasize at any moment into Islamic fundamentalism.
In fact, they can't really tell them apart, not seeing the giant theological and practical differences. You could put Jesus and Mohammed side by side, and they would say "oh, Jesus is much better," but put the Christian and Islamic books and history and current practiced side by side, and they stupidly say "not much difference."
>> given the Darwinian creation myth
Actually, evolution is exactly that, and most IDers and creationists (and a majority of Americans, whom Darwinists think are 'idiots') believe whole heartedly that evolution is the origins myth of the atheist, having little to do with actuality.
The elephant in the room that evolutionists miss is that their theory has little or NO data to support it, and much to contradict it. To them, ALL data seems to support it. It is fanatical faith and ignorance to the highest degree, but people who need an excuse to reject the biblical God will do all kinds of self-deceptive logical gymnastics to convince themselves.
This is why I wrote, and stand by with fervor, Mass Delusion – 10 Reasons Why the Majority of Scientists Believe in Evolution
I suppose that as a minority, such a dread is usual, perhaps even reasonable, because the majority can do horrible things to those minorities they consider moral miscreants.
Well, duh, do you suppose? Given the history of xianity – up to this day – I don't trust you guys as far as I can spit (and it's not just the RCC types at fault here). Excuse yourself as you will, the rest of us are not fooled. Just look at the argument M&M presented above (which you didn't dispute): Nazis were all gay, or influenced by gays, or attracted so many gays as to be, essentially, gay – and all documented reports of the vicious persecution of gays by the Nazis were exaggerated at best and fabricated at worst. Next this moron will be denying the Jewish Holocaust (unless, of course, he can somehow blame that on the gays as well). Then, all of WWII will somehow be the gays fault. No wonder I distrust and despise you guys. If Hitler has any modern-day closet adherents, it's people like you. Liars, bigots and hate-mongers all.
mynym:
Hitler's selective breeding program was not Darwin's fault, no matter what Ben Stein says. If you have to blame something, blame animal husbandry or creationism. He was trying to breed out "negative, non-Aryan" traits, leaving the "positive, Aryan" ones. That's a hop away from animal husbandry, which is artificial selection and not natural selection. He wasn't trying to evolve Man, he was trying to get back to and maintain the ideal "Aryan". That's not ToE, that's OT (remember the bits about not allowing the Israelites to marry people from the out group, no "defective" people allowed in the temple, the general focus on purity, etc). Heck, blame Luther, too. His treatise, On the Jews and their lies easily had more influence on Hitler, as well as the level of anti-semitism in Europe in general and Germany in particular, than anything else (eight point plan, anyone?).
>> Just look at the argument M&M presented above (which you didn't dispute): Nazis were all gay, or influenced by gays, or attracted so many gays as to be, essentially, gay – and all documented reports of the vicious persecution of gays by the Nazis were exaggerated at best and fabricated at worst.
Because I did not understand him, and so asked him some questions. But even you yourself have said that many evangelicals who disdain gays are probably projecting due to their own proclivities.
I suspect that in all sexually repressive ideologies and subcultures, esp. Islam and Catholicism, there is plenty of homosexuality going on. When healthy sexual appetites are frowned upon, every obtuse type of lust rears its ugly head. I suspect that the oppressiveness of the Nazi regime on its own officers made their 'flesh' rebel, and caused them to obsess about all kinds of perversions, both sexual and human.
Mynym is not saying, i don't think, that the nazi's weren't anti-gay, but that while being anti-gay, they were also secretly engaging in similar or identical perversions – as I said, bring in oppression, and people act out in all kinds of ways. No surprise.
>> Then, all of WWII will somehow be the gays fault.
I seriously doubt he is saying that, you are misunderstanding completely.
>> Liars, bigots and hate-mongers all.
Whatever. Logical conversation just died.
>> Hitler's selective breeding program was not Darwin's fault, no matter what Ben Stein says.
Actually, the documentation is overwhelming that Hitler and his ideologue buddies took eugenics to a new height, in part buttressed by the ideas of social darwinism, which darwin recognized, though did not support. Darwinism has brought nothing to science except hopeful nonsense for atheists, and woe to those who take it beyond science to social engineering, like Hitler.
>> That's a hop away from animal husbandry, which is artificial selection and not natural selection.
But you miss the point. While animal husbandry can show you how you might get better traits through breeding, Darwinism brought in the idea of fitness, which could then be used to justify the destruction of the 'less fit.' Not only was it 'natural,' but it could even be seen as positively helping the human race.
>> Heck, blame Luther, too. His treatise, On the Jews and their lies easily had more influence on Hitler, as well as the level of anti-semitism in Europe in general and Germany in particular, than anything else.
True, Luther's mistakes in this area did influence Germany and Hitler.
Look, the TOE and Darwinism are elegant but just flatly untrue, a creation myth for materialists, a hopeful monster to give people without faith an origins story.
To me, Darwinism is the scientific equivalent of the old joke with a piece of paper that says "How do you keep a moron busy? Over >" on both sides. Happy hunting for snipe.
Hi Daniel:
You wrote: Actually, the documentation is overwhelming that Hitler and his ideologue buddies took eugenics to a new height, in part buttressed by the ideas of social darwinism, which darwin recognized, though did not support. Darwinism has brought nothing to science except hopeful nonsense for atheists, and woe to those who take it beyond science to social engineering, like Hitler.
I suppose it's an epistemological pet peave of mine: I think the search for scientific truth ought to focus on whether an idea is true, not on whether people might misuse the idea. The biologists I know are quite convinced that evolution describes the development of life on earth and I see no reason to think they aren't making the best judgment they can, given their knowledge of the data. Evolution doesn't imply atheism, so even if it's true it cannot provide intellectual support for atheism. But biologists AS biologists don't say otherwise.
Likewise, evolution being true in no way provides MORAL justification for eugenics, nor for social darwinistic economic policies and IMO Christians are aiming at the wrong target by trying to get the public schools to teach in a junior high science class that which the overwhelming scientific judgment declares to be scientifically baseless. A room of snotty nosed kids and a gym teacher is NOT where scientific advances happen. They happen when people trained in the field exercise their professional training to explore things.
your friend
Keith
Logical conversation just died.
!
After calling me a "shameless pervert" and "unnatural" you have the chutzpah to say that? You've got a set, that's for sure. I don't know why I bother.
Here's a thought: You apologize like a good little xian to me, and I'll do the same to you. Let's see how deep your faith actually goes.
Nazis were all gay, or influenced by gays, or attracted so many gays as to be, essentially, gay…
The fact that you can read things like, “At any rate, although Himmler and Roehm disputed [homosexuality] (based on philosophic naturalism and their political aspirations, not “the ethical code worship of the Jews”)….” and get “He’s saying that the Nazis were all gays or somethin’. See how he hates and victimizes me!” only shows that ignorance and mental incompetence leads to propaganda and perhaps on to violence or the immanent language of the fist, as you might put it.
…and all documented reports of the vicious persecution of gays by the Nazis were exaggerated at best and fabricated at worst. Next this moron will be denying the Jewish Holocaust…
I’ve debated Holocaust deniers and your ridiculous distortions of history are similar. See: Deating a Holocaust Denier.
I’m used to this type of propaganda but you can try again if you like.
No wonder I distrust and despise you guys.
You can try to rationalize and project your hatred and phobias as you like but you are the one engaging in propaganda and saying virtually anything no matter how ridiculous and ahistorical. Apparently you can somehow work yourself around into believing things like: “The Nazis wanted to kill gays because they were just like a bunch of fundamentalists who just got out of Sunday school or somethin’, I says!” because you are governed and defined by your sexual desires. After all, this is typical Gay© reasoning: “Before I was living a lie but then I was honest to my sexual orientation.” Given that it seems that for those who self-define as Gay© the truth is defined by sexual desires. It seems that sexual desires are the only “truth” for those who choose to define themselves as Gay©, so anything which gets in the way of their fulfillment must be “lies” and “evil” and so on.
If Hitler has any modern-day closet adherents, it’s people like you. Liars, bigots and hate-mongers all.
It’s simply a matter of historical facts that the Nazis were not a bunch of Christian fundamentalists and so on. Note the history of the Confessional church, it seems that the more fundamentalist a Christian was the more likely they were to oppose Nazism. You don’t seem to care about the truth in the least so it seems that you cannot realize how morally degenerate it is to deny history.
As to the side issue of homosexuality, even those Nazis who disagreed with homosexuality didn’t do so because they went to Sunday school and had bible studies where they learned Jewish tradition or some such nonsense. Those who opposed homosexuality did so based on the Darwinian creation myth or political pragmatism. Again, the historical facts:
Hitler’s selective breeding program was not Darwin’s fault, no matter what Ben Stein says.
Darwinian reasoning has much to do with Nazism, just as Stein argued but it seems that effete passive agressives who engage in similar reasoning to this day simply cannot admit it. It may be worse to claim that the extermination of lower races is an inevitable scientific fact rooted in a law of nature than to argue that it is a moral imperative rooted in nothing more than social contexts. That was Darwin’s claim and further he also claimed to explain the very moral sensibilities on which civilization is based as the vestiges of a “noble instinct.” He argued his racist views as a scientific fact which would be inevitable based on his mythology of Progress while his moral views were merely a relic of evolution.
It was only a matter of time until someone took Darwin’s ignorant and stupid ideas seriously:
If you have to blame something, blame animal husbandry or creationism.
Note that creationism is rooted in a Jewish creation story which the Nazis believed was the work of ignorant nomads.
That’s a hop away from animal husbandry, which is artificial selection and not natural selection.
What is “artificial”? This is the way that Darwinism supposedly contradicts Nazism? The Nazis viewed themselves as biological beings and so as the historian Robert Lifton notes they believed themselves to be natural selection in operation. This is why there was an extra layer of meaning when people arrived at concentration camps and a process of “selection” took place. Given Darwinian reasoning they could even lament the vestiges of morality that they felt while admitting to scientific facts and natural laws.
That’s not ToE, that’s OT (remember the bits about not allowing the Israelites to marry people from the out group, no “defective” people allowed in the temple, the general focus on purity, etc).
There’s something perverse about the claim that Hitler was intolerant of the Jews because the “Jewish influence” was supposedly a force for racism and intolerance, mainly because this claim was not uncommon to Nazis. See generally: (Modern Fascism: The Threat to the Judeo-Christian Worldview by Gene Edward Veith)
This is another instance where those engaged in what they well know to be evil can supposedly lament it as necessary or inevitable. As Hitler argued he would have been for tolerance but it was the Jews who had introduced intolerance to the pagan world, therefore he was only being intolerant of intolerance.
Heck, blame Luther, too. His treatise, On the Jews and their lies easily had more influence on Hitler, as well as the level of anti-semitism in Europe in general…
Yet Hitler himself argued:
Interviews with Nazis by other historians show that the Nazis thought that their views were rooted in biology, not historical prejudices. For example:
Which of these are you saying?
– that the nazis used darwinism to support killing gays?
Himmler did but it was much more common for homosexuals to kill each other, to blackmail each other and for heterosexual Nazis who were morally degenerate to use claims of homosexuality against their political opponents.
that many of the nazis themselves were gay?
Yes, many were, but that doesn't mean that even members of the "special community" as they put it wouldn't kill or imprison each other.
that my position and the nazi ones are dissimilar because I am not a Darwinian (eugenist)?
There is virtually no similarity between someone who roots their worldview in what the Nazis would call the "Jewish influence" and the worldview typical to Nazis. Indeed, journalists and historians trying to define the immanent forms of blurred "thinking"/feeeling typical to Nazism often can only define it as an anti-Jewish and anti-Christian/anti-Christ type of pattern:
When healthy sexual appetites are frowned upon, every obtuse type of lust rears its ugly head. I suspect that the oppressiveness of the Nazi regime on its own officers made their 'flesh' rebel…
The Nazi regime generally didn't adhere to traditional sexual ethics and given the hedonism of many it's hard to see how the regime was supposedly morally oppressive. Many historians have noted the opposite:
I think the search for scientific truth ought to focus on whether an idea is true, not on whether people might misuse the idea. The biologists I know are quite convinced that evolution describes the development of life on earth and I see no reason to think they aren't making the best judgment they can, given their knowledge of the data.
They are trained to allow imaginary forms of "evidence" which shapes their judgment of form/image and the supposed formation/specification of all species. It seems that on some level they must understand this because they don't take their own hypotheses seriously and apply them consistently. But when actually taken seriously their hypotheses explain the origins of man and morality, so "morality" cannot be used to define whether their type of scientia/knowledge is "misused" or not and so on. The supposed split in knowledge/wit promoted by half-wits does not actually exist, either their form of knowledge is total or can be total in principle or the whole Darwinian creation myth crumbles. For example, if it is said that Darwinism does not apply to man and moral decisions now then how far back does this go? After all, a capacity for moral decisons/selections which fall outside of natural selection and physical processes would seem to impact what is imagined as the evolutionary history of man as well as other animals man may have contact with and so on. On the other hand, if things like natural selection and physical processes do explain all of biology then man's capacity for moral decisions and the supposed "misuse" of science is merely an illusion anyway.
"…the whole Darwinian creation myth"
Such ignorance!
>> I think the search for scientific truth ought to focus on whether an idea is true, not on whether people might misuse the idea.
I agree, but what I am contending is not that evolution is false because it has been abused, but that part of a proper epistemological method is to examine the real-world impact of an idea, its LOGICAL conclusions when taken to their logical ends, and the other thought systems that it integrates with.
So beyond empirical and historical examination of an idea (both of which present severe challenges to evolution!), the three things mentioned above ARE relevant. That is, in addition to evolution's failure in empirical and historical science, it fails in:
>> The biologists I know are quite convinced that evolution describes the development of life on earth and I see no reason to think they aren't making the best judgment they can, given their knowledge of the data.
In Mass Delusion – 10 Reasons Why the Majority of Scientists Believe in Evolution I provided 10 possible and plausible reasons why biologists might NOT be using their best judgment.
Also, the shameful and purposeful conflation of empirical science, historical evidence, philosophy of science, and assumptions in evolutionary camps is so flagrant, the objective person ought to be highly suspicious of claims of surety with regard to evolution.
Also, as a Christian, I would think that you have examined the bible, and realize that in ways both scientific and theological, evolution is not compatible with the Bible. Unless you adopt a VERY liberal or inconsistent hermeneutic, that is.
>> Evolution doesn't imply atheism, so even if it's true it cannot provide intellectual support for atheism.
That's true in a simplistic, non-real-world sense. But in actuality, evolution directly challenges the Biblical cosmology, and provides a creation story for atheists where previously there was a vacuum, as Dawkins himself admits in his now infamous quote about evolution allowing atheists to now be 'intellectually fulfilled.'
>> Likewise, evolution being true in no way provides MORAL justification for eugenics, nor for social darwinistic economic policies
No, but it provides intellectual and scientific justification for such, which, in the absence of a meaningful ethic like that Christian one, can easily be extended to those other applications. And in fact, the same humanistic value system that allows abortion is no defense against the seemingly good applications of eugenics in preventing future suffering from disease among humans.
>> A room of snotty nosed kids and a gym teacher is NOT where scientific advances happen.
NO, but it is where tomorrows scientific, moral, and thought leaders are being trained today, and ignoring the ethical and moral impact and implications of evolution, not to mention the intellectual problems with teaching it as a truism, are really important. Christians ought to fight in BOTH arenas – in the current sciences (which they are – and of course, being persecuted and denied tenures, or even being dismissed), as well as in education.
Wow mynm, great quote showing that Hitler considered traditional anti-semitism (does that include Luther's religious anti-semitism?) insufficient as a motivation for wiping out the Jews. The intellectual Darwinian perspective fit the bill perfectly!
>> The Nazi regime generally didn't adhere to traditional sexual ethics and given the hedonism of many it's hard to see how the regime was supposedly morally oppressive.
So you are saying the opposite? That Nazism was so permissive, even welcoming of deviance that homosexuality was common among them? Then explain again how they justified killing gays, and why they despised it enough to use it as a political smear against opponents? There seems to be a disconnect – how could they both practice and condemn it?
>> "…the whole Darwinian creation myth"
>>> Such ignorance!
No, such blindness and delusion on the part of evolutionary believers. This is gonna be a tough uphill climb, but truth always wins out eventually, and lies like common descent eventually crumble under their own weight.
You're more intelligible when you speak in tongues and have fits on the floor, Seeker/Daniel.
>> You're more intelligible when you speak in tongues and have fits on the floor, Seeker/Daniel.
Anti-religionists can be so charming.
Such ignorance!
Ironic, it is utterly ignorant to believe that imagining things about the past which seem “natural” is a hard form of scientia/knowledge. Note that the greatest barrier to progress in knowledge is not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge.
An illusion of knowledge has been propped up by proponents of Darwinism for well over a century with arguments of association instead of arguments based on logical and systematic thinking applied to actual empirical evidence. You can see this in the common comparison between Darwinian “reasoning” (Such as it is.) and Newtonian reasoning. Note that physicists do not tend to argue that their theories are just like biological theories, instead they point to empirical evidence and so on. Yet for well over a century biologists have sought to compare a collection of hypotheses rooted in hypothetical goo with physics. This argument of association (i.e. propaganda) which safeguards ignorance by pretending it is the equivalent of knowledge is often found at the grassroots level:
Apparently ignorant people are supposed to begin to assume that Darwinism is “just like” gravity or some other well established knowledge/scientia.
Darwinists seem very fond of shifting into “just like” arguments which have little to do with actual science. But very well, if Darwinism is “just like” physics or some other form of science that actually comports with the empirical evidence then what is the well established metric for natural selection? What is the equation for Darwinism’s most basic and foundational tenet? Shouldn’t such equations be learned by every student of biology? These “just like” associative arguments that Darwinists are so fond of seem to reveal that they actually can’t track and predict the destination of an adaptation “just like” the trajectory of a physical object can be traced given gravity and physics. And given the incessant attempt at an association with Netwonian reasoning from Darwin himself on isn’t natural selection as sure as gravity and as verifiable as tracing the trajectory of an object before it is set in motion? Are biologists in the habit of thinking that physicists sit around after an object comes to rest and then write an equation summing up what is already known or perhaps a little story about how Nature “selected” it to be there by supposed natural selections operating in ways that are unverifiable? Is Darwinism on the same epistemic level as theories that make predictions and have been repeatedly tested and encoded in the precise language of mathematics or not? The same type of questions are easy to give a rough answer to in physics with respect to gravity’s impact on physical objects and Darwinian theory (i.e. natural selection) is incessantly said to be on the same epistemic level. Given that, Darwinists should be able to make predictions about the adaptations found in living organisms and so have an actual theory subject to falsification. Yet it has been my experience that they can’t make any predictions and instead begin to make excuses about how complex living things and their relationships are. Yet if that’s the case then they should have never made the argument about their hypotheses being on the same epistemic level as the theory of gravity in the first place. It might even be knowledge but it certainly isn’t the same form of knowledge.
It’s little wonder that Darwinism is generally thought to conflict with creation myths, as that seems to be the type of knowledge that it is. If it’s not rooted in imagining things about the past then let’s focus on an actual trajectory of adaptation which can be verified by empirical evidence. It seems that one reason that Darwinists do tend to imagine things about the past and don’t tend to focus on specifying a theory which can be verified by empirical evidence is because if a falsifiable edge to evolution is found then many little “just so” stories rooted in mythological narratives of naturalism might be undermined.
It's an old trick employed by bigots and homophobes to tar gays with the Nazi brush. Because Roehm and a few others were means little: they were ruthlessly exterminated by Hitler and the S.S., using their "perversion" as an excuse. Were there Nazi homosexuals? I'm sure there were, just as there were Jewish collaborators, but that doesn't mean that Nazism had a homosexual flavor or was particularly attractive to gays (or is relevant to today's gays). And denying the well-documented persecutions of gay men by the Nazis is akin to the Holocaust deniers take on the Jews: it just depends on your viewpoint and intent. Yours is obviously poisoned with malice.
That being said, now that we've established our mutual contempt, I see no reason to continue.
Hey man, if I make fun of snake handlers for their wacky behavior you'd have no problem with it. If I make fun of the people who behave like idiots shouting gibberish and rolling all over the floor then I get sarcasm. But, that's only because you are one of those nutty people. If for example I made fun of stupid Muslim customs like the burqa (What's the point?), you'd be on board.
>> And denying the well-documented persecutions of gay men by the Nazis is akin to the Holocaust deniers take on the Jews:
Again, I'm not clear on whether or not mynym is saying that. Mynm, can you clear this up?
>> If I make fun of the people who behave like idiots shouting gibberish and rolling all over the floor then I get sarcasm.
Um, no, you were making fun of ME, and in a quite patronizing and superior manner. Even that I could swallow if you actually included some meaningful argumentation around the subject at hand. But pure ridicule? Trolling.
""…the whole Darwinian creation myth""
Let me explain your own ignorance to you, Mynym. Evolution has nothing to do with creationism. The creation myth you believe is from Genesis, right? It's just one of many other religious creation myths. It's nothing special. Do you get it now?
Trolling… pot kettle black.
So you are saying the opposite? That Nazism was so permissive, even welcoming of deviance that homosexuality was common among them?
Homosexuality was common in the S.A. to the point that some heterosexual members complained that there was no hope for advancement. It was less common among those who were less revolutionary, yet still morally degenerate.
Then explain again how they justified killing gays, and why they despised it enough to use it as a political smear against opponents?
Why would someone insult a political opponent in this way: “Well, you’re secretly just like me!” Such irrationality has little precedent in politics yet this type of argument is common to Gays© to this day. Some Nazis justified killing Gays© because they viewed homosexuality as unnatural based on nationalism rooted in a Darwinian worldview. This is not the same as viewing homosexuality as unnatural based on traditional theism, something Nazis would trace back to the “ethical code worship of the Jews.”
Note that ultimately the American civilization may decline into some form of Nature based paganism rooted in a Darwinian worldview, nationalism then takes on a sinister aspect and groups of people considered to be harming the general welfare may be discriminated against and so on with no concern for Christian traditions like tolerance for “all nations” and charity towards the sick and outcast. Modern Gays© have worked hard to define themselves biologically in the popular mind while also working to eliminate Christianity, yet if nationalism rooted in paganism does emerge again then Himmler’s arguments may emerge again too.
As Himmler said:
Homosexuals were killed simply for their homosexuality on this type of basis. Yet even after Himmler and the S.S. killed Roehm and the S.A. a policy of extermination was not enforced as it was against the Jews. For example, there were well known openly Gay© artists and the like who were never arrested while even German/Jewish military heroes weren’t safe from the Final Solution.
>> Trolling… pot kettle black.
I see, so your defense is "two wrongs make a right" or "I can do it because you do?" How elevated your ethics are!
AND, btw, there is a difference between ridiculing an idea or a group that holds such ideas, and direct insults to persons. I attempt not to do the latter, though perhaps poorly. YOU on the other hand, justify such behavior.
So to summarize, I am either imperfectly holding to my ideas, or a hypocrite. You, on the other hand, seem to be justifying your behavior by pointing to others. Not sure what that is called (sinner? :), but it can't be good.
It’s an old trick employed by bigots and homophobes to tar gays with the Nazi brush.
Actually it’s an old trick employed by Gay© activists to use negative imagery and emotional conditioning against anyone who opposes the supposed “truth” they find in their own sexual desires. This is the text to a bit of propaganda they suggest invoking Nazi imagery for the sake of arguments of association and associated emotional conditioning:
They go on to analyze this type of ad:
It’s interesting how people can be taken in by emotional conditioning and so on without regard for facts, logic and evidence. As propagandists themselves note:
At any rate, it’s worth striving for the opposite effect where people focus on facts, logic, evidence and the pursuit of truth. It seems difficult for Gays© to focus on anything other than their own feelings because the identity itself is based on sexual desires and feelings as well as defining the “truth” and morality by sexual desires. For instance, is homosexuality moral for a group of people who self-define as Gay© or is it moral for everyone? Would Gay© marriage and Gay© rights apply to all equally or would it apply to a group of people supposedly defined by their sexual orientation? The simple fact is that rights apply to everyone and morality which is supposed to govern and shape sexual desires applies to everyone as well. If homosexuality is moral then it is moral for everyone and if it is prescribed or supported by the State then that will apply to everyone no matter what their sexual desires may happen to be at any given time over their life-span.
>> This was not punishment, more the simple elimination of this particular abnormality. It is vital we rid ourselves of them; like weed we must pull them up, throw them on the fire and burn them. This is not out of a spirit of vengeance, but of necessity; these creatures must be exterminated.
So, note that biblical Christians call homosexuality an "abnormality." Louis would have you believe, therefore, that we also hold to the remainder of the opinion above.
But if we do not, what biblical perspective prohibits such?
As I have contended, the difference between Nazi and Muslim approaches to homosexuality and the xian one is that Christianity commands that we:
– love our 'enemies'
– pray for them
– command them to repent!
That is the limit of xianity's 'violence' against homosexuality.
HOWEVER, there is the separate but related idea of the translation of the xian world view into the political arena. If we believe that the bible gives us instruction in how to conduct public policy, how are we to address homosexuality?
The Puritans criminalized it through so-called Sodomy laws. I have argued that such a stance is NOT biblical, and that the govt should, as in most moral gray zones, remain neutral, neither criminalizing nor condoning.
Evolution has nothing to do with creationism.
Evolution is a term rooted in little more than hypothetical goo which comports with all possible biological observations* and at a broader level it has been used to mean anything from a change in size in the beaks of birds to all change that has and ever will take place in the Cosmos.
On the other hand what people typically think of as creationism has been generally specified in Jewish texts for millenia.
*For example, what biological observation would falsify whatever it is you think you mean by "evolution"?
Mynym,
Evolutionists who act so intellectual not only have a 'hard time' coming up with scenarios for falsifying their <s>myth</s> pet theory, they fail to look for falsifying data, or when it appears, do some extended hand waving. It's a tragic comedy, for sure.
Hi Daniel:
YOU wrote: Darwinian reasoning has much to do with Nazism, just as Stein argued but it seems that effete passive agressives who engage in similar reasoning to this day simply cannot admit it. It may be worse to claim that the extermination of lower races is an inevitable scientific fact rooted in a law of nature than to argue that it is a moral imperative rooted in nothing more than social contexts.
Your above comment assumes a notion of more or less advanced races which has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution's "survival of the fittest". In Darwinian evolution there is no higher or lower race, there is only races that are more likely to reproduce. Any strategy that accomplishes differential reproduction gives a species a relative reproductive advantage over less "fit" creatures. A different environment could reverse the advantage, reverse the so-called "higher" or "lower".
That was Darwin's claim and further he also claimed to explain the very moral sensibilities on which civilization is based as the vestiges of a "noble instinct." He argued his racist views as a scientific fact which would be inevitable based on his mythology of Progress while his moral views were merely a relic of evolution.
I don't know that Darwin was a racist, although he might well have held the same bigotries that people of his time held, bigotries THEY held without deriving them from Darwinian evolution. I think he makes a philosophical error if he thinks evolution can produce morality (as opposed to the instinct to think moral exists), but there is nothing inherently racist in Darwin's evolution. One needn't believe there is a biological justification for murdering the Jews–one could use whatever was available to rationalize that evil path.
your friend
Keith
That is the limit of xianity's 'violence' against homosexuality.
BULLSH*T!
For centuries xianity sought and committed the extermination of gay people through any means at hand. This is a historical fact. It's only been recently, and through the graces of Englightenment and secular values, that we have been relatively free from your clutches. And, as I've said before, I don't trust you as far as I can spit, your protestations of "love" notwithstanding.
btw: M&M's repeated use of the copyright sign every time he uses the word "gay" points to his malice and anti-gay agenda (as is his gay Holocaust denial). 'nuff said!
Dang! Another post in the "spam queue". I should be insulted.
mynym “It may be worse to claim that the extermination of lower races is an inevitable scientific fact rooted in a law of nature than to argue that it is a moral imperative rooted in nothing more than social contexts.”
You’re confusing the “is” of natural selection with the “ought” of social philosophy. Gravity is a heartless bitch too, but you don’t see Social Netwonism.
“Interviews with Nazis by other historians show that the Nazis thought that their views were rooted in biology, not historical prejudices.”
Which came first? The Nazis originated “Jew” as “race”, rather than simply a religion or culture. Besides the industrialisation of murder, that’s their contribution to anti-semitism.
“For example, if it is said that Darwinism does not apply to man and moral decisions now then how far back does this go?”
Natural selection does apply to Man (Black Death, anyone? How about Ice Ages?). We’re just pretty good at avoiding it with things like clothing, soap and the like. Thumbs and big brains are handy.
Not to me, but…
danielg “Also, as a Christian, I would think that you have examined the bible, and realize that in ways both scientific and theological, evolution is not compatible with the Bible.” & “…evolution directly challenges the Biblical cosmology…”
That’s your problem, not Darwin’s, nor the fossile records, nor genetics. That your book doesn’t match reality is a weakness of the Bible, not reality.
“Unless you adopt a VERY liberal or inconsistent hermeneutic, that is.”
Yeah! Take that, interpretations other than your own!
“No, but (evolution) provides intellectual and scientific justification for (eugenics, social darwinism), which, in the absence of a meaningful ethic like that Christian one, can easily be extended to those other applications.”
That doesn’t make the justification justified. That makes it rationalized (in the commonly used sense). Also, you do know just how much the “meaningful ethic like that Christian one” has changed over the years, right? It’s not “one” ethic. It’s a pastiche. A patchwork quilt of compatible, semi-compatible and downright incompatible squares of True Christianity. From Quakers to Conquistadors, Unitarians to theonomists…a pretty big spread.
“And in fact, the same humanistic value system that allows abortion is no defense against the seemingly good applications of eugenics in preventing future suffering from disease among humans.”
Is (warning: graphic pictures) anencephaly not a valid reason for abortion, humanist or not? “Seemingly good”? What about voluntary negative eugenics for those that don’t want to pass on the diseases from which they suffer?
“NO, but it is where tomorrows scientific, moral, and thought leaders are being trained today, and ignoring the ethical and moral impact and implications of evolution, not to mention the intellectual problems with teaching it as a truism, are really important.”
Science is for science class. Not ID. Not astrology. Not alchemy. Philosophy of Science does fit in science class. Philosophy of Science doesn’t involve majik. The ethical and moral impact is that we developed over time, with amity within the “in” group (family, tribe) and emnity with “out” groups and that this explains our morality (a mix of co-operation and competition, with competition to spread our “seed” and co-operation to ensure that it survives, with competition against other “tribes” for resources and co-operation with our “tribe” for the hunting/gathering/family rearing/protection from hungry predators) better than God + Fall ever did. Good, bad, messy. That’s Man.
“Wow mynm, great quote showing that Hitler considered traditional anti-semitism (does that include Luther’s religious anti-semitism?) insufficient as a motivation for wiping out the Jews.”
Wow, people using the new “rationality” to promote their own prejudices, rather than leaning on the old religious prejudices that were losing their strength (*ahem*). The “antisemitism of reason” was what, exactly? What objective facts did they use to “prove” that Aryans were the best and, to varying degrees, everyone else was inferior (except, of course, for the Japanese. They were honorary Aryans. How scientifical!). I’m sure that they’d back up their “rational proofs” with phrenology. If head bumps prove anything, it’s that Aryans are the best.
“This is gonna be a tough uphill climb, but truth always wins out eventually, and lies like common descent eventually crumble under their own weight.”
Again with the common descent…did you read those books I linked earlier? We are descended. Commonly.
mynym “What is the equation for Darwinism’s most basic and foundational tenet?”
Life + modification X generations = change
“And given the incessant attempt at an association with Netwonian reasoning from Darwin himself on isn’t natural selection as sure as gravity and as verifiable as tracing the trajectory of an object before it is set in motion?”
It’s not future predictive (with any greater granularity than things change). Random change, remember? With super-duper technology of the Future, we could theoretically model the universe accurately enough to predict the where and when, but I doubt it.
It’s past predicitve. ToE helps fill in the gaps in the deep time past. As such, it’s more “A, ?, E”. ToE predicts the “?”. Tiktaalik was a “?”. Now, it’s “point AE”, with much further subdivision possible and some other tween points found.
“Yet it has been my experience that they can’t make any predictions and instead begin to make excuses about how complex living things and their relationships are.”
Every gap leads to a prediction. Every transitional fossil fulfills the prediction. Some, inevitably, end up reorganizing the trees themselves.
“It’s little wonder that Darwinism is generally thought to conflict with creation myths, as that seems to be the type of knowledge that it is.”
That’s because it does conflict with creation myths, not because it’s also mythical. Whales came after insects, not before. And it’s not just ToE that conflicts with creation myths. Stars came before the Earth, not after. It’s not the facts’ fault that Genesis is wrong. People didn’t know any better.
“Why would someone insult a political opponent in this way: “Well, you’re secretly just like me!” Such irrationality has little precedent in politics yet this type of argument is common to Gays© to this day.”
It’s not “you’re secretly just like me”, it’s “you’re just like me, but until that comes to attention of the public, you make a conventient target”. Um…you have heard the rhetoric of the Christian Right, right? Have you heard of (a minority of) their deeds? How many of them have been brought low when their words didn’t match their actions? From Swaggart to Haggard, David Swartz, Donald Lukens, Ed Schrock, Larry Craig, Mark Foley, etc (emphasis on the “etc”) the convenience of “them” combined with the zeal of externalizing one’s own demons makes for a potent and toxic combination.
“This is not the same as viewing homosexuality as unnatural based on traditional theism, something Nazis would trace back to the ‘ethical code worship of the Jews.'”
Suddenly “Judeo-Christian” is “Judeo”, eh?
Himmler quote
You do know that “the gays” don’t generally reproduce, right? His rhetoric is closer to the Quiverfull movement (“Oodles of pure Christian soldiers for the War on “Them”).
“Actually it’s an old trick employed by Gay© activists to use negative imagery and emotional conditioning against anyone who opposes the supposed “truth” they find in their own sexual desires.”
Some Americans are gay. All Americans have inalienable rights. Ergo, gay Americans have inalienable rights. It’s not that complicated. What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is none of your damn business. “The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.” ~ Pierre Trudeau.
If two consenting adults want to commit to a relationship, with the tax advantages, visitation rights in hospitals, survivor benefits and the like, you have no right to deny them that right (with the notable exeption of incest, but that’s not for the your or their wellbeing, that’s for the potential childrens’ wellbeing, as well as their inalienable right not to play the banjo).
If you want to protect the “sanctity” of marriage, restrict divorce. Good luck on that.
danielg “Evolutionists who act so intellectual not only have a ‘hard time’ coming up with scenarios for falsifying their myth pet theory, they fail to look for falsifying data, or when it appears, do some extended hand waving.”
“Fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian>” ~J B S Haldane
“It’s a tragic comedy, for sure.”
No. Trying to push majik in science class is a tragic comedy. Insisting that the hypothesis of ID is a genuine theory is a tragic comedy. Abstinence-only sex-ed is a tragic comedy. People waiting for the Rapture is a tragic comedy. Biologists, geneticists, etc looking at the real world is the opposite of tragedy.
As I have contended, the difference between Nazi and Muslim approaches to homosexuality and the xian one is that Christianity commands that we:
– love our 'enemies'
– pray for them
– command them to repent!
btw: It's interesting that you see us as your enemies. That explains a lot.
Your above comment assumes a notion of more or less advanced races which has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution’s “survival of the fittest”.
It has plenty to do with Darwinian reasoning as put forth by Darwin himself, as Stein points out. The terms “selection” and “fit” and “favored” are supposedly amoral but Darwin advanced his theory based on a grand mythology of Progress (see the last few pages of the origins) advanced amorally yet with moral language. The Nazis often promoted racism in the same way:
Would you agree that mendacity is inherent in scholarship methodically rooted in such a philosophy? It matters little. Based on the same mendacity and the same sort of weakness typical to Darwinian reasoning one might point out that everything you write here has more to do with brain events totally explicable based on past events such as natural selection operating in imaginary ways on the reproductive and excretory organs of ancient ape-like creatures, which is in turn explicable based on the mating habits of ancient worm-like creatures and so on. Given Darwinian “reasoning” conceptual thinking, the ability to imprint abstract/transphysical forms of code/language on matter and all the symbols and signs which typify intelligent design are all an illusion. That is, if you’re willing to be half-witted enough to be taken in by charlatanism while denying or overlooking roughly half of all wit/knowledge.
For centuries xianity sought and committed the extermination of gay people through any means at hand. This is a historical fact.
It’s been years but as I recall the historian John Boswell argued that forms of same-sex marriage were sanctioned in Christianity for centuries. Yet now here you are saying that extermination was the policy and so on? So I suppose he is wrong?
M&M’s repeated use of the copyright sign every time he uses the word “gay” points to his malice and anti-gay agenda (as is his gay Holocaust denial). ’nuff said!
It seems that you’re too wrapped up in your own victimization propaganda to focus on the truth as such but the simple truth is that there is little evidence that people’s sexual desires/orientation define them as a certain type of person with a certain type of identity. So a person who chooses to practice homosexuality in other cultures would hardly identity with the ridiculous tendency towards portraying oneself as an effete and passive victim which typifies American Gays©. American Gay© propagandists argued in the 90s that victimization propaganda would be effective and perhaps they are the best use of psychological dynamics typical to effeminates but it may be that arguments of this sort: “Oh, I see, so you hate me!” “Disagreeing with me must mean that you want to beat me up!” “Let’s face it, this is all because you hate me or somethin’!” are too immature. After all, it may as well be an episode of Jerry Springer: “Don’t be hatin’!” combined with a little “Oh, you just jealous!”
This will only take you so far. Rhetoric that’s successful in pop-culture contexts of bimbos, air-heads or Hollywood liberals usually won’t change a whole civilization and its basic institutions. This is why Gay© propagandists recommended a final strategy in which Gays© are portrayed as Everyman. You see, they may as well be conservative heterosexuals and probably almost fundamentalists themselves. This would probably be effective but one problem with this type of imagery is that it is hard to support in reality.
Keith – I didn't write that, mynym did.
>> LOUIS: For centuries xianity sought and committed the extermination of gay people through any means at hand. This is a historical fact.
OK, could you provide some good references to confirm?
Perhaps instead of writing "That is the limit of xianity's 'violence' against homosexuality" I should have said
– this is the theological or doctrinal limit set by the NT
– in OUR generation, this has surely been the limit, since I know of NO physical violence against gays promoted or perpetrated by Christians (moral condemnation does not count as violence in my definition here)
>> KEITH: bigotries THEY held without deriving them from Darwinian evolution.
This is a common fallacy used by evolutionary supporters. Yes, both racism and eugenics were around before Darwinism, but the unique and powerful contribution of Darwin to these awful perspectives was that it gave *scientific* validity to them – as mynym pointed out in his quote above, traditional religious and cultural bigotries could not support a national pogrom, but 'science' could.
Darwinism was associated with racism for many reasons – yes, it certainly fit right in with the bigotries of the day, but also, it logically led to such conclusions, even if it was not 'meant' to. I still hold that this logical and historical connection is a valid criticism of Darwinism beyond it's scientific failures. And in some ways, its widespread acceptance DESPITE its vagaries and failures makes it all the more critical that we understand these other connections, because they explain in part why it is so widely accepted by many educated people.
>> M&M's repeated use of the copyright sign every time he uses the word "gay" points to his malice and anti-gay agenda
I do think it is a subtle form of sarcasm that takes away from the discussion and mynym's credibility. But I think you exxaggerate what it means.
>> Gravity is a heartless bitch too, but you don’t see Social Netwonism.
And why is that? Why is Newtonian physics not subject to the same sort of philosophical abuse as Darwinism? Because they are very different types of science.
– physical v. biological sciences (living systems)
– empirical v. historical science (you can’t observe evolution)
– science v. philosophy of science (evolution has significant philosophical components
Gravity and evolution are neither equally sure nor equally provable. Evolution is hardly science at all.
I see that none of you have provided conditions under which evolution could be falsified.
>> Gravity is a heartless bitch too, but you don't see Social Netwonism.
And why is that? Why is Newtonian physics not subject to the same sort of philosophical abuse as Darwinism? Because they are very different types of science.
– physical v. biological sciences (living systems)
– empirical v. historical science (you can't observe evolution)
– science v. philosophy of science (evolution has significant philosophical components
Gravity and evolution are neither equally sure nor equally provable. Evolution is hardly science at all.
I see that none of you have provided conditions under which evolution could be falsified.
Hi Daniel:
KEITH: bigotries THEY held without deriving them from Darwinian evolution.
This is a common fallacy used by evolutionary supporters. Yes, both racism and eugenics were around before Darwinism, but the unique and powerful contribution of Darwin to these awful perspectives was that it gave *scientific* validity to them – as mynym pointed out in his quote above, traditional religious and cultural bigotries could not support a national pogrom, but 'science' could.
But Darwinian evolution COULDN'T be properly used to argue for eugenics because nothing in Darwinian evolution says which organisms OUGHT to survive. Darwinian evolution offers an explanation as to WHY certain species survive and reproduce, and a description of the process by which life developed. Prior to Darwin it was very commonly believed even by educated men (Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln) that some races were smarter and cleverer than others. They would say their belief was based on clear minded observation, which is exactlty what Darwin based his evolutionary theory on. Even if evolution is true, that doesn't lend support at all for the idea that some races are dumber than others, or more evil, or any such thing. Evolution has nothing to do with such. That some thinkers (Herbert Spencer, the social darwinist, for example) defended doing nothing to help the poor by calling on darwinian ideas for support. Had there been no Darwin, he would have found another science to misuse. The same is true for the Nazis.
You might as well condemn ALL science, since anything can be misused by people determined to justify savagery.
your friend
Keith
danielg "I see that none of you have provided conditions under which evolution could be falsified."
I did, but it's in the spam queue. Actually lots of stereotypical creationist "I'd believe in evolution if…" statements would be evidence against ToE if they happened (cats birthin' dogs, lizards havin' birds, etc).
OK, could you provide some good references to confirm?
From time to time I will post the evidence. Here's a beginning:
From: "Gays and the Future of Anglicanism: Responses to the Windsor Report" –
From the Christian emperor Justinian in the sixth century until the eighteenth century, Christian communities around Europe regularly put homosexuals to death by burning, beheading, flaying, drowning or hanging them. The ancient Christian thinkers Tertullian, Eusebius and John Chrysostom all argued that same sex relations deserve the penalty of death…In medieval Europe, secular laws often invoked the authority of the bible to execute homosexuals. Bologna adopted the death penalty for sodomy in 1259. Padua followed suit in 1329; Venice in 1342; Rome in 1363; Cremona in 1387; Milan in 1476; and Genoa in 1556. King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain actively sought out sodomites to be burned. In the hundred and twenty five years after Calvin taught in Geneva, there were thirty burnings, beheadings, drownings, and hangings of homosexuals in that city. Scores of men and boys were hanged for homosexual activity in Georgian England. Before the advent of modernity, women in Europe were also vulnerable to execution if convicted of lesbianism. The history of churches' treatment of gay people has for over a thousand years been a history of hatred, persecution and death. To this day, standard Christian textbooks devoted to moral theology and commenting on homosexuality are usually trite treatises because of their complete silence on the long-standing brutality meted out to homosexuals by churches, whether Roman Catholic, Anglican or Protestant. For homosexuals, the history of the Christian church has been a kaleidoscope of harrowing horrors. Their fortunes have now changed. Physical violence has mutated into rhetorical violence…
>> KEITH: But Darwinian evolution COULDN'T be properly used to argue for eugenics because nothing in Darwinian evolution says which organisms OUGHT to survive.
I think in a very technical sense, you MIGHT be correct. However, in a very real sense, it is pretty much a universally accepted truism on the human level that SURVIVAL as a species is a good thing, and death is bad. In addition, it is pretty common to assume that the needs of the whole outweigh the needs of the individual. Lastly, with the naturalistic assumption that whatever happens in nature is 'natural' and therefore morally good or neutral (this is NOT the xian view), what is there to keep us from the obvious conclusions that eugenics are wrong?
Ergo, if Darwinism is true, we are doing good. As I said, even Darwin addressed this directly because it was an obvious application of his theory. Does that make it wrong? Not by itself.
But I still claim that this is a valid piece of secondary evidence against it, as is the historic 'abuse' of it, which I contend is not entirely abuse, but a reasonable application of it UNLESS you bring in ethics to stop it – ethics which do NOT exist in the materialist and atheist world views (and perhaps not even in the humanist world view).
The primary evidence against it (hindering science, providing little use as a model, and fitting the data extraordinarily poorly) is damning enough. Add to that these secondary data, plus the obvious abuse of science that most evolutionary supporters engage in (conflating all aspects of science and philosophy as if they were all equal to empirical data), and I'd say evolution is a colossal failure, and a dangerous ideology in that it creates high allegiance for psychological reasons rather than merely scientific.
But again, regarding its culpability in eugenics, I contend that, while it does not DEMAND such, it strongly implies such, and is at least suspect, and is NOT innocent of such implications.
>> KEITH: Prior to Darwin it was very commonly believed even by educated men (Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln) that some races were smarter and cleverer than others.
Clearly evaluating the differences between races is not racism. Considering other races as inferior or less advanced, or worthy of being property or killed to preserve the human race is entirely different.
>> KEITH: They would say their belief was based on clear minded observation, which is exactlty what Darwin based his evolutionary theory on.
Again, Darwin's contribution was with regard to FITNESS, and the mistaken assumption that natural selection leads to ADVANCEMENT in the genome. These two ideas are what takes Darwinism from science to philosophy and serves to give scientific validity to eugenics.
>> KEITH: Had there been no Darwin, he would have found another science to misuse.
That doesn't make Darwin right. The fact that Darwin was used is more than the abuse of an idea that charlatans would have done with any other available idea – Darwinism (and atheism) have REAL WORLD consequences, and are MORE LIKELY to produce such abuses, in part because those 'abuses' are merely the logical outworking and extensions of those theories.
Proponents of both ideologies claim innoncence for their world view when it comes to such 'abuses,' but when a logical intellectual progression to those ends is both straight forward and applied in history, such claims must be looked at with doubt.
And before we get on this "Christianity could be argued against in the same manner," I somewhat agree, but somewhat disagree. If you look at the NT, you will be hard pressed to find justification for eugenics, totalitarian governments, killing of enemies or sinners, or even slavery (arguable). But my alibi is, admittedly, not water tight.
>> You might as well condemn ALL science, since anything can be misused by people determined to justify savagery.
Again, I do not condemn Darwinism merely because it has been abused, but primarily because it sucks as science. But secondarily, because its very content leads almost inexorably to abuse, which should give thinking people pause.
>> MODUS: That's your problem, not Darwin's, nor the fossile records, nor genetics. That your book doesn't match reality is a weakness of the Bible, not reality.
No, it's a problem for anyone who considers themselves a biblical Christian. There are places where the historic, origins, and theological claims of the bible disagree with evolution. I was addressing Keith, who as a Christian, would most likely have this problem.
However, the fossil record does not support and in some ways flatly contradicts evolution, as do genetics and many other branches of science. The bible matches reality well, while evolution only matches the vain imaginings of anti-biblical fools like yourself.
To ignore the overwhelming support of history and archaeology with respect to the bible, and to rather hold on to evolutionary origins as a definitive answer, when it is unobservable, unprovable, and in some ways counterintuitive is as bad an intellectual gamble as you could make.
From the Christian emperor Justinian in the sixth century until the eighteenth century, Christian communities around Europe regularly put homosexuals to death by burning, beheading, flaying, drowning or hanging them.
I’m curious about this imagery of martyrdom, what historical source mentions flaying? You don’t cite any historical sources. For almost the exact opposite view see:
(Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe by John Boswell)
and (Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century by John Boswell)
Gays© tend to be ruled and defined by their feelings instead of seeking the truth as such. That’s part of the reason that I use the copyright symbol, there isn’t much truth to “gay” as a supposed category of people instead it is just a pseudo-religious self-definition rooted in “coming out” and proselytizing a certain type of philosophy and so on. So “gay” can be defined ideologically in America in modern times as a set of beliefs rooted in hedonism by which sexual desires/orientation defines morality and so supposedly legality. Yet “gay rights” will apply to all people equally and not just a supposed class of “gay people” just like any human right applies to all equally. The supposed basis of “gay” arguments is incorrect, it is impossible to define different groups of people based on their sexual desires/orientation legally.
Supposedly such a definition is or will be possible biologically, for some reason homosexual propagandists never seem to realize that arguing that you’re defined as a certain type of person biologically while supporting socialism probably isn’t the smartest thing to do. John Boswell argues that Christian tolerance and even acceptance of homosexuality was widespread until States emerged which needed to assert their power.
That's your problem, not Darwin's, nor the fossile records, nor genetics. That your book doesn't match reality is a weakness of the Bible, not reality.
Darwinian interpretations of fossils, genetics, etc., are often defined more by their opposition to the Bible or creationism more than by actual verification based on empirical evidence. For instance "panda's thumb" type arguments which aren't supported by specifying the theory of natural selection conceptually and then predicting a trajectory of adaptation leading to thumbs, instead it's supported by arguments against what is believed to be traditional theology. Roughly summarized: "God wouldn't make a panda's thumb like this, therefore natural selection is verified." For some reason physicists never seem to argue: "Well God wouldn't let this particle be here, therefore my theory is verified." yet this type of argument is common among Darwinists and one of their main blogs is named after it. It would be one thing to engage in theology to make such arguments while allowing people to disagree with them but while they make such arguments they also hypocritically argue that theology must be excluded from the study of origins.
At any rate, if Darwinism matches/fits reality then what do you think has been predicted by it? Common ancestry? Darwinism cannot be said to predict common ancestry while it is also being ignorantly argued that it has nothing to do with the origin of life itself. So what trajectory of adaptation does Darwinism predict? Going through millions upon millions of organisms and looking for similarities in order to imagine sequences based on imaginary events in the past is not a prediction. In contrast, the Genesis narrative specifies a common origin for all life and commonalities in form and information which are specified by design which will tend to resist explanation by descent. Genesis has been specified for millenia while Darwinism has been mutating for a century, often defined and specified by little more than its opposition to Genesis.
Gays© tend to be ruled and defined by their feelings instead of seeking the truth as such.
More evidence of ignorant bigotry.
Try this:
Christians© tend to be ruled and defined by their feelings instead of seeking the truth as such. In fact, they fear and despise the search for truth for it will inevitably lead to the destruction of the beliefs which shield them from reality. Christians© also evidence a pathological need for scapegoats on which to project their own guilt. Thus, gays, being conveniently a despised minority already, are the prime target of hatred for everything from their own failures in the bedroom to their failures as parents.
danielg "However, the fossil record does not support and in some ways flatly contradicts evolution, as do genetics and many other branches of science."
The fossil record points to things changing over (deep) time. Genetics supports the patchy fossil record (except when it doesn't. Then the tree gets reorganized. This is what happens when sometimes radically incomplete data is complemented by another discipline).
"The bible matches reality well…
Is that why prayer doesn't work on any level above anecdotal? Is that why people, with some regularity, spend three days inside whales, with no greater harm done than a slight musky odour? Is that why the early gospels read like the main character is the ancient equivalent of the guy on the corner with a "The End is Nigh!" sign? Is the end still nigh? 'Cause I was thinking of getting tickets for AC/DC, but I don't want to waste my money if it really is nigh.
"…while evolution only matches the vain imaginings of anti-biblical fools like yourself."
Zing! An incomplete, naturalistic theory is better than even the most ironclad supernatural one. This is why God doesn't shoot lightning bolts anymore. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say that He (or they) never did, even when people really really really believed that He (or they) did. If there's one thing about supernatural explanations, it's just how weak they proof to be when faced with actual explanations. I'm not "anti-biblical". I just don't give it the weight you do. I am, however, a fool. That's why there are bells on the tips of my shoes.
mynym "At any rate, if Darwinism matches/fits reality then what do you think has been predicted by it?"
Tiktaalik.
"Common ancestry? Darwinism cannot be said to predict common ancestry while it is also being ignorantly argued that it has nothing to do with the origin of life itself."
Until abiogenesis is more solid (it's little more than a bunch of shaky hypotheses now), ToE has little authority on the real first very first "life" (itself, a much greyer area that most people think). You're welcome to believe that God set things up on the right track for life. You're even welcome to declare that He simply majik'd up the first cell. What you're not welcome to do is put it in science class.
"So what trajectory of adaptation does Darwinism predict?"
Things change. Given enough time, radically so.
"Going through millions upon millions of organisms and looking for similarities in order to imagine sequences based on imaginary events in the past is not a prediction."
Thing, thing. "Hey…" says Prof. Scientist, "If there's a thing in between those two similar things, it will probably look like a transition between them. Let us go dig, and see if we find anything between those two. Holy heck! After a mere four years of spending the short summers up here digging in an area where the exposed area is about the right age, and is thought to have been a nice river estuary or seashore, we've discovered Tiktaalik!"
"In contrast, the Genesis narrative specifies a common origin for all life and commonalities in form and information which are specified by design which will tend to resist explanation by descent."
That's why Man, majik'd up from dirt, has no (broken) fish genes, because, while he shared a common origin with the other "kinds", he has no common descent from the fossil fishies.
"Genesis has been specified for millenia…"
…because we didn't know any better.
"…while Darwinism has been mutating for a century, often defined and specified by little more than its opposition to Genesis."
…while ToE has been advancing for a century and a half, often called "Darwinism", mostly by people who really should know better by now, is only in opposition to Genesis because everything is in opposition to Genesis. Science may be wrong on the exact details (my guess: it is), but it's closer than Genesis ever was.
>> "If Darwinism matches/fits reality then what do you think has been predicted by it?" Tiktaalik.
Aaron correctly entitled his old post on this Tiktaalik – evolution's savior.
See also Tiktaalik and the Fishy Story of Walking Fish
I don't think that this fossil is some great prediction. While it may fit into the evolutionary model, it fits the creationist one too (variation within kinds). And as we are finding out, morphological similarity often has NOTHING to do with actual relatedness.
But a better place to focus is on conditions that would FALSIFY evolution. I looked in the spam queue, but did not see anything. You wanna propose those again?
>> Things change. Given enough time, radically so.
Oh, that's a very specific prediction. Evolution must be true, since I've seen things change. Classic ambiguous argument to support evolution. What you probably meant is "things change, and sometimes for the better, against the law of entropy because natural selection can push it that way." Of course, we almost never see that – beneficial mutations, I mean. But if you like betting against the odds, you go for it.
Hey, creationism says things change too! It must be true. But even better than evolution , it says that they *adapt* and *degrade*, but produce no new genetic information. And you know what? Tha't EXACTLY what we see.
"Aaron correctly entitled his old post on this Tiktaalik – evolution's savior."
It should've been "If man came from apes, then why are there still apes?" I especially enjoyed the pictures and the scorn. Kudos for comparing one of the steps in between fossil fish and amphibians with more modern fishies. Too bad about the eyes, the shape of the head, and the fins.
"But a better place to focus is on conditions that would FALSIFY evolution. I looked in the spam queue, but did not see anything. You wanna propose those again?"
The queue is unqueued.
*"Fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian>" ~J B S Haldane
*Actually lots of stereotypical creationist "I'd believe in evolution if…" statements would be evidence against ToE if they happened (cats birthin' dogs, lizards havin' birds, etc).
"Evolution must be true, since I've seen things change."
Wow. That was an easy conversion.
"Classic ambiguous argument to support evolution."
"Moon goes 'round. Classic argument for gravity. Pbbt!" See? I can do it too! Hurrah! Have you read those two books I linked earlier? 'Cause you're just farting in the breeze, otherwise, as I am, as you well know, a fool. On my best days, the best I can do is confuse you.
"What you probably meant is "things change, and sometimes for the better, against the law of entropy because natural selection can push it that way."
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics argument? You do know that the Earth isn't a closed environment, right?
"Of course, we almost never see that – beneficial mutations, I mean."
Of course. "Random" mutation. Should I say it louder? It's exactly what you'd expect of a system that's pretty good at repair, but not perfect, in a universe with no one in charge. Do you know what most "negative" mutations will be? A little extra blood in your period. Maybe a clot. Probably not even that far.
"But if you like betting against the odds, you go for it."
Golly. You're the one who bet on the horse that can't make Bible math match reality math and could pass on 600+ mitzvahs, expecting each and every one to be carried out, but couldn't get Genesis right, because His chosen might have become confused.
"Hey, creationism says things change too! It must be true. But even better than evolution , it says that they *adapt* and *degrade*, but produce no new genetic information."
linky. Sorry about the crap Youtube link. I had a link to a page that listed all of the ways that "information" is added to the genome. Off the top of my head all I can think of were viral transfer, horizontal transfer, and duplication.
"And you know what? Tha't EXACTLY what we see."
You'd make the worst geneticalguy. That's the scientific term. I've got my schooling.
Try this:
Christians© tend to be ruled and defined by their feelings instead of seeking the truth as such.
Christians don’t self-define by their own feelings and claim that their feelings or sexual desires define morality and truth for them. It’s actually apposite to compare being Gay© with a religion, except that it is a religion of hedonism in which one’s own feelings and sexual desires are the definition of morality, rights, etc.
This is the reason I use the copyright symbol, even if one accepts “gays” based on their own definitions they tend to change the meaning as a means to ends. Imagery of Gay People© disappears and reappears as it suits activists no matter what the truth really is. But typically in America gay means a person who “comes out” and says that they have a certain pattern of sexual desires which they think are good so they self-define as Gay© publicly and so on. So they are defined by their feelings and according to their reasoning their feelings and sexual desires define the truth: “Before I was living a lie but now my life is true.” This isn’t some esoteric bit of knowledge, it’s common in America. So to say that American Gays© tend to be ruled and defined by their own feelings and don’t tend to seek the truth as such is merely admitting to what they typically say of themselves. The truth is that anyone could adhere to their reasoning, a man who had adulterous thoughts or feelings for a time could use such reasoning to say that living with his wife and children was based on a lie because of how he felt. The National Association for the Acceptance of Fat people could use such reasoning to argue that they are born to eat and that when they try to stop they aren’t being true to themselves, etc. Virtually anyone can make use of this type of religion of hedonism, so it’s little wonder that your conflict is with other religions.
Tiktaalik
So you claim that Darwinian theory can be used to predict a type of organism but here’s a more interesting question, what type of organism or biological observation would falsify Darwinian “predictions”?
As to your claim, fossil forms make it easier for Darwinists to imagine things about the past because they have no soft anatomy. And it has been proven that Darwinists are imagining things about the past incorrectly on more than one occasion. Typically their type of imaginary evidence cannot be verified or falsified because all the evidence that is left is a fossil but on a few occasions their type of imaginary evidence has been refuted by empirical evidence. For instance, Darwinists once imagined things about the Coelacanth similar to the way you apparently want to imagine things about Tiktaalik:
But when the Coelacanth was found alive so that its actual behavior and soft tissue could be studied was it cited as evidence that the so-called “major gap” remained? Given that Darwinism is based on a grand mythology of Progress which is woven into Darwinists’ view of science itself it can only be verified, never falsified. Coelacanth was supposedly predicted by Darwinism and cited as evidence filling in a supposedly troubling “major gap” but when it turns out that it did no such thing Darwinists don’t seem that troubled after all. Given that Darwinism apparently “predicts” all biological observations they can revert back to some form of hypothetical goo combined with their grand mythology of Progress anyway. It’s a mistake to assume that they are limited by falsification/verification rooted in basic forms of mathematical/logical reasoning and/or empirical evidence, instead they are quite capable of treating their own imaginations as the equivalent of empirical evidence. That’s probably why the evidence seems “overwhelming” to them, they can imagine more at any given time.
As a matter of historical record, it is you, the straight majority, who has attempted to define us, the hx minority, in derogatory and bigoted fashion to dehumanize us and aggrandize your supposed “normalicy.”
It really doesn’t make any sense to try to define people by their sexual desires or to speak of a “straight majority.” I can’t speak for them anymore than you can really speak for all homosexuals the way that you purport to do here. The “straight majority” would seem to include everyone with a pattern of heterosexual sexual desires for the majority of their life-span or some such. I certainly wouldn’t claim to speak for them, nor do I identify with them. But note that if everyone of this sort was really as you say then self-defined gays wouldn’t be one of the wealthiest, best educated and privileged classes in America. They simply couldn’t be, because every straight person would need to validate their identity as opposed to being gay.
If what you mean by “gay” is effeminate then yes it’s a common pattern among young men to define normalcy as opposed to being gay or being a girl or woman in any sense. However the victimization of “sissies” and so on is not a sound argument for changing the basic structure of a civilization, if it was then the victimization of fat kids in school could be used to argue that morbid obesity shouldn’t be judged unhealthy and that Christians shouldn’t condemn gluttony, etc. Whatever reasoning that is applies to homosexuality also applies to all sorts of behavior patterns and desires, so your reasoning can be used by “fat activists” and so on. Right and wrong apply to all equally, not just minorities like “fat people” or “gay people.”
It’s as if gays invented hedonism, as if the straight lifestyle isn’t riddled with hedonism.
Of course it is, many human patterns of behavior are often riddled with hedonism.
It also displays a pathetic ignorance of gay individuals, as if all gay people do nothing but attend orgies all day long.
There is really no such thing as “gay people” for you to speak for or to make generalizations about unless you’re willing to be clear about your definitions. It is typical for American homosexuals to engage in this type of reasoning: “When I didn’t fulfill my sexual desires I was living a lie.” Examples can be cited. Such arguments can only be made when the truth is being defined based on your own feelings and desires. That is hedonism as a philosophy. And although people who tend to choose a traditional heterosexual lifestyle may also be “riddled with hedonism” it cannot be to the same extent because their philosophy is clearly different. For instance, a man who had adulterous thoughts or feelings for a time could say that living with his wife and children was based on a lie because of how he felt, how powerful his sexual desires were, how men are born with a promiscuous tendency, etc., yet these arguments are not common. And it is not common for a man to commit adultery and then “come out” to say that he was “living a lie” and so on, yet prominent Christian homosexuals can and do engage in such reasoning.
It is merely our choice of sexual partners which set us apart from the majority.
Gay philosophy sets you apart to the point that reasoning that works if you’re homosexual doesn’t work for heterosexuals. A philosophy of hedonism also leads to lifestyles that heterosexuals would reject:
But you and your ilk won’t let us. For some weird reason, you have singled us out for persecution and oppression.
I haven’t advocated any persecution or oppression, instead you have been using victimization propaganda to apparently argue in favor of the language of the fist and so on. Your fear and hatred is transparent, yet you keep projecting it onto other people as if they must feel as you do.
No wonder we respond with anger and contempt.
And fear and hatred…but if you could break out of your feelings for a moment maybe you could get back to citing some actual historical evidence. It’s still not clear how John Boswell can argue one thing about Christian tolerance of homosexuality while you’re apparently arguing the exact opposite. Aren’t you interested in what’s actually true?
We are human beings…
That’s true. You should probably stop dehumanizing yourself by defining yourself by your feelings as gay and supposedly speaking for “gay people” so on. I know that sexuality can feel like it’s the be all, end all but there’s a lot more to life and being human.
I don’t speak for “straight people” anymore than you supposedly speak for and represent “gay people.” You can say “We are this and that…” “We do this…” “Gay people object!” and try to hide in an imaginary crowd all you like but you’re really only speaking for yourself if you can’t back up what you say.
At the individual level do you really believe that Daniel or I or anyone else against “gay rights” want to beat you up or perhaps flay you and so on? Note again that there is no such thing as “gay rights,” human rights apply to all.
Fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian." ~J B S Haldane
If fossils in the "wrong" place in the fossil record falsify Darwinism then it has been falsified many times over. Yet generally such evidence has not been advanced as a possible falsification or evidence that there is something wrong with the theory, why do you suppose that is?
Actually lots of stereotypical creationist "I'd believe in evolution if…" statements would be evidence against ToE if they happened (cats birthin' dogs, lizards havin' birds, etc).
No they wouldn't, instead they would be cited as evidence for it just like everything else. Evolution is rooted in hypothetical goo which comports with everything, it would have comported with Lamarckism just as easily as it is thought to comport with Mendelism. It comports with multiple origins of life as well as a single origin, therefore it doesn't even predict common descent. It comports with hopeful monsters (cats birthin' dogs) as well as cats birth' cats. And the list could go on, not to mention that in a wider sense the term "evolution" is used to describe all change that has or will ever happen in the Cosmos.
When it comes to biology every biological observation can be imagined to be evidence for Darwinism. Apparently this feature of Darwinism causes the minds of some to be "overwhelmed" by their own imaginations to the point that they can't tell the difference between actual empirical evidence and mental imagery having to do with the blurring of form as we know it.
mynym "For instance, Darwinists once imagined things about the Coelacanth similar to the way you apparently want to imagine things about Tiktaalik:"
I have no idea some people in 1955 thought that a bony fish was a gap between fossil fish and amphibians. It might be, but way over on the fish side. I tried a googling, but only came up with few hits, none of which are anything close to the original article (some of the comments in this may be illuminating).
…And when I "imagine" things about Tiktaalik, and its successors and predecessors it's a musical, thank you very much. There aren't enough musical fish, IMO.
from Homophobia: A History by Byrne Fone:
"Though the fathers of the Church could not agree upon the nature of Christ or the wording of a creed, they were united in their detestation of homosexual acts. Initially, only the most devout of the laity and the strictest of the clergy subscribed to these views and those expressed by the councils of the Church, but the weight of their opinion began to be felt in civil laws that increasingly reflected Christian doctrine. No pre-Christian Roman law had forbidden homosexual acts; some Roman legal opinion had been suspicious of them, but only when they infringed on the rights of freeborn minors. But by the fourth century the empire had become officially Christian, and legal condemnation based on religious precept became possible. In 342 the co-emperors Constans and Constantius II promulgated an edict that read: "When a man submits to men, the way a woman does, what can he be seeking?…We order the statutes to arise, and the laws to be armed an avenging sword, that those guilty of such infamous crimes, either now or in the future, may be subjected to exquisite penalties." p. 114
"In 527 the emperor Justinian began his long reign at Constantinople. Continuing the policy of his predecessors, he set out to eradicate the last vestige of pagan intellectual freedom. In 529 he ordered the closing of the Athenian academy, founded by Plato in 347 B.C.E., and began the work of codifying – and revising – Roman law. One of the laws he revised was the ancient Lex Julia, which punished adulterers with death; in 533 Justinian decreed that the death penalty be extended to homosexual acts…
"Justinian's edicts were the first laws to declare all homosexual acts illegal and to punish them by death. Civil authority had only rarely focused attention upon homosexual acts in the centuries between the Church councils of Elvira and Ancyra in 305 and 314 and Justinian's time, but the novella of 544 introduced into civil law both the story of Sodom and Paul's abhorrence, thus translating Judeo-Christian condemnation of same-sex practice into Roman law. Homosexual practice was now defined in law as a threat to the common good, to the state as well as the soul, and those who engaged in it were the cause of social, civil, and natural disorder. That the state, prompted by the word of God and supported by legal precedent, was obliged to identify, punish, and even destroy such creatures for the good of the majority, was the harsh and unarguable basis of the law.
"It has been argued that the laws promulgated in the fourth and fifth centuries constituted a "veritable crusade" against homosexuality. But this notion is as overstated as the opposite assertion, that Christianity played but a minor role in the foundation of homophobic attitudes (by Boswell among others). It is true that what we would call homophobic sentiment can be discovered in antiquity. Still, it is also true that neither pagan nor ascetic philosophers would have found homosexual practices sinful, nor did any pagan state declare them criminal, nor did any pagan rite name damnation as their eternal punishment." pp 116-117
mynym "If fossils in the "wrong" place in the fossil record falsify Darwinism then it has been falsified many times over."
It's a fragmentary record. 99.9% of things don't fossilize and most of those are out of sight (under ocean and/or underground). As such, trees get reorganized as new fossils are found. That's not rabbits in the pre-Cambrian.
"No they wouldn't, instead they would be cited as evidence for it just like everything else."
Dogs giving birth to cats would support evolution? I love you. Don't ever change.
"It comports with multiple origins of life as well as a single origin…"
Abiogenesis could have happened more than once, but only one lead to us, and wrote its history in our genes. Heck, it could be happening again right now before your very eyes, but all of its precursors would be food for something alive now.
"therefore it doesn't even predict common descent."
Which is why we have (broken) fish smell genes, because in no way not how not ever were our ancestors waterbound. Your logic is unpeckable.
"…not to mention that in a wider sense the term "evolution" is used to describe all change that has or will ever happen in the Cosmos."
Yes, but that's not biological evolution.
"Apparently this feature of Darwinism causes the minds of some to be "overwhelmed" by their own imaginations to the point that they can't tell the difference between actual empirical evidence and mental imagery having to do with the blurring of form as we know it."
Theories based on incomplete data will themselves be incomplete. As such, the theory changes with new information. None of this information indicates biblical "kinds". Comparative genetics shows that we are all inter-related. We all have genes that we wouldn't have if we were "kinds" rather than common descent. You're still special. You just aren't that special. If God exists, God exists, but if He does He's not working in the way that He told Moses He did.
Whether or not ToE turns out right, the data still doesn't point to whales on day X with insects a little more recent and Man a bit after that.
mynym “If fossils in the “wrong” place in the fossil record falsify Darwinism then it has been falsified many times over.”
It’s a fragmentary record. 99.9% of things don’t fossilize and most of those are out of sight (under ocean and/or underground). As such, trees get reorganized as new fossils are found. That’s not rabbits in the pre-Cambrian.
“No they wouldn’t, instead they would be cited as evidence for it just like everything else.”
Dogs giving birth to cats would support evolution? I love you. Don’t ever change.
“It comports with multiple origins of life as well as a single origin…”
Abiogenesis could have happened more than once, but only one lead to us, and wrote its history in our genes. Heck, it could be happening again right now before your very eyes, but all of its precursors would be food for something alive now.
“therefore it doesn’t even predict common descent.”
Which is why we have (broken) fish smell genes, because in no way not how not ever were our ancestors waterbound. Your logic is unpeckable.
“…not to mention that in a wider sense the term “evolution” is used to describe all change that has or will ever happen in the Cosmos.”
Yes, but that’s not biological evolution.
“Apparently this feature of Darwinism causes the minds of some to be “overwhelmed” by their own imaginations to the point that they can’t tell the difference between actual empirical evidence and mental imagery having to do with the blurring of form as we know it.”
Theories based on incomplete data will themselves be incomplete. As such, the theory changes with new information. None of this information indicates biblical “kinds”. Comparative genetics shows that we are all inter-related. We all have genes that we wouldn’t have if we were “kinds” rather than common descent. You’re still special. You just aren’t that special. If God exists, God exists, but if He does He’s not working in the way that He told Moses He did.
Whether or not ToE turns out right, the data still doesn’t point to whales on day X with insects a little more recent and Man a bit after that.
Twice! That's one time too many. D'oh!
>> Off the top of my head all I can think of were viral transfer, horizontal transfer, and duplication.
Sorry, copying is not creating new information. You gotta show that the original information was created by mutation. NOT.
>> The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics argument? You do know that the Earth isn't a closed environment, right?
Yeah yeah, the closed system argument has gone around and around, mostly a bunch of handwaving and 'majick' by evolutionists. I think creationists have done a good job of answering that answer.
>> You'd make the worst geneticalguy.
I have a BS in Biochemistry with a focus on biochemical genetics. I did five years of human cancer research. I spent years UNlearning the evolutionary nonsense they taught us, while holding on to the real science of genetics. Evolution contributes little to genetics, and actually moves it backwards.
Most of what passes for 'evolutionary genetics' is merely comparative genomics, something that even creationists do.
>> Justinian's edicts were the first laws to declare all homosexual acts illegal and to punish them by death. Civil authority had only rarely focused attention upon homosexual acts in the centuries between the Church councils of Elvira and Ancyra in 305 and 314 and Justinian's time, but the novella of 544 introduced into civil law both the story of Sodom and Paul's abhorrence, thus translating Judeo-Christian condemnation of same-sex practice into Roman law. Homosexual practice was now defined in law as a threat to the common good, to the state as well as the soul, and those who engaged in it were the cause of social, civil, and natural disorder. That the state, prompted by the word of God and supported by legal precedent, was obliged to identify, punish, and even destroy such creatures for the good of the majority, was the harsh and unarguable basis of the law.
Well, from that paragraph, I gather that
1. It was not the church who persecuted and killed gays, but the Roman government who translated the rightful moral disdain for homosexuality and adultery into the death penalty, ignoring Jesus' handling of the woman caught in adultery (though that passage may not actually be in the original manuscripts ;).
So I don't think you can pin this on the church directly.
2. NO previous murdering and flaying of gays occurred before this time.
>> It has been argued that the laws promulgated in the fourth and fifth centuries constituted a "veritable crusade" against homosexuality. But this notion is as overstated as the opposite assertion, that Christianity played but a minor role in the foundation of homophobic attitudes
I'm sorry, but moral disapproval may be 'the foundation of homophobic attitudes,' using modern gay apologist rhetorical terms, but that is far from the pogroms you are suggesting. Not very convincing evidence of Christianity's long, brutal war on homosexuality.
danielg "Sorry, copying is not creating new information."
Sorry, but it is. Purple flowers get more purple when the gene for purple gets duplicated. Two copies of "see blue" will each mutate, potentialy evolving in to multicolour vision. Viral transfer/horizontal transfer give an organism something that it didn't have before. Those are new information.
"You gotta show that the original information was created by mutation. NOT."
That would probably fall under abiogenesis, and is therefore on much shakier ground. You can default to majik if you like, but if there's one hypothesis that consistently fails, it's majik.
"Yeah yeah, the closed system argument has gone around and around, mostly a bunch of handwaving and 'majick' by evolutionists."
The Earth is not a closed system. We've got the sun (and, to a lesser extent, a bubbly interior). The universe appears to be a closed system. As such, it is running down. Earth is not the universe. We mooch off the Sun. When its gone, so are we. Mark your calendar.
"I think creationists have done a good job of answering that answer."
Repeating the accusation isn't an answer. There are things we don't know. Abiogenesis, the thing that lead to us, is one of those. The answer is there. I'm guessing that the answer, when we do find it, won't match any of the hypotheses (or more likely, I think, it will involve most of them to some extent).
"Most of what passes for 'evolutionary genetics' is merely comparative genomics, something that even creationists do."
So what do they did when they found evidence for common descent beyond "kind"?
"…So what do they did…"
Ha! I'm nutty.
>> MOD: Those are new information.
Modification through inactivation and combination is not new information. It's like having two existing colors and combining them, then saying "see, we created new paint." No, you took paint that someone else created and mixed it. No novel information, just recombination of existing info.
If that's your definition of 'novel' information, then you've missed the whole argument – you've confused recombination of existing functional genes with the creation of new ones. No WONDER you think evolution is possible – your slight of hand makes it look like you've created something when you have not. You can fool yourself, but not me.
>> MOD: That would probably fall under abiogenesis, and is therefore on much shakier ground.
And THAT is the whole point that creationists are trying to make. Evolution can NOT account for the information of the genome, and random mutation could NOT take us from primordial soup to DNA (abiogenesis).
So when you say stuff like that, I basically hear that as an admission that you unknowingly agree with IDists (DNA could not have come from nothing), and with creationists, who argue that no new novel proteins are actually created via evolutionary processes – only adaptation, recombination of existing info (which had to come from somewhere other than abiogenesis), and deleterious mutation.
>> MOD: Repeating the accusation isn't an answer. There are things we don't know.
I just didn't want to rehash the whole 'open system, closed system' thing. The problem is that when backed into a corner, evolutionists think that "there are some things we don't know" is a good answer, when the things we don't know are at the FOUNDATION and CORE of their theory, so all that they parade around as "as sure as gravity" is really just their having convinced themselves that their imaginings of how things work and worked (common descent, which is tantamount to abiogenesis in the final analysis, IMO) are actually proven.
Truly, the evolutionist has no clothes.
>> So what do they did when they found evidence for common descent beyond "kind"?
Well, of course, 'kind' roughly equates to Family. But that is a good question.
Humorously, because 'kind' is somewhat ambiguous, like evolutionists, they COULD just fudge the boundaries to fit such data into 'kind.'
Secondly, I am not exactly sure what would be considered evidence for something outside of a kind (yet still genetically ancestral) – I have yet to get to my book on Baraminology, which I know covers such topics.
danielg “Modification through inactivation and combination is not new information.”
I don’t remember mentioning those, besides the “broken” genes which indicate common descent.
“It’s like having two existing colors and combining them, then saying “see, we created new paint.” No, you took paint that someone else created and mixed it. No novel information, just recombination of existing info.”
Which is why fur and feathers are teeth (in the larger sense) is just like mixing two different colours of paint and ending up with wallpaper and given enough time, a window. We’re mostly cobbled together rather well from things cobbled together from other things repurposed from other things cobbled together from…
“If that’s your definition of ‘novel’ information, then you’ve missed the whole argument – you’ve confused recombination of existing functional genes with the creation of new ones. No WONDER you think evolution is possible – your slight of hand makes it look like you’ve created something when you have not. You can fool yourself, but not me.”
It’s easy to show my sleight of hand by not answering whatever it was that I was saying. Kudos.
“And THAT is the whole point that creationists are trying to make. Evolution can NOT account for the information of the genome, and random mutation could NOT take us from primordial soup to DNA (abiogenesis).”
That we don’t have a solid answer is not a reason to default to the supernatural. Picking the majik horse is the easiest way to be wrong.
“So when you say stuff like that, I basically hear that as an admission that you unknowingly agree with IDists (DNA could not have come from nothing),”
Uh. No. My admission is that I, personally, don’t know and that the people that do know only know a little.
“…and with creationists, who argue that no new novel proteins are actually created via evolutionary processes…”
Obviously. This is why a googling of “protein evolution” comes up dry. I read a few of the papers that I didn’t find on that search that found nothing and…lets just say that protein guys have their own lingo. They could’ve been in Greek for all I know.
“…recombination of existing info (which had to come from somewhere other than abiogenesis)…”
And, because we don’t know all the details, it must have been majik. I hate to belabour a point, but the Argument from Supernaturality is the just the Argument from Ignorance, wrapped in the cloak of false (and divine) attribution.
“The problem is that when backed into a corner, evolutionists think that “there are some things we don’t know” is a good answer,”
It’s not an answer. It’s an admission of ignorance (not in the pejorative sense). Try it, sometime. “God did it” may sound like an answer, but it’s no better. It’s worse, actually, as it implies confidence that the non-answer is an answer.
“…when the things we don’t know are at the FOUNDATION and CORE of their theory…”
So by extension, since we don’t know what happened at the beginning of the Big Bang, sciences like physics, cosmology and the like are clearly treading water in quicksand?
“…so all that they parade around as ‘as sure as gravity’…”
You do know that we have no idea how gravity works, right? We know that it does happen, but we’re still working on “how”. ToE explains evolution and genetics explains at least some of “how”. Abiogenesis is, and will continue to be, a big question mark, as will be the start of the Big Bang, probably. This means that your God will always have at least a couple of gaps to hide in.
“…is really just their having convinced themselves that their imaginings of how things work and worked…”
Clearly, the leftover bits of our distant ancestors in our genes is just our “imagining” the “fact” of “common descent”. Have you at least ordered those books I linked to earlier?
This looks like it has some potential (although I haven’t read it), and I discovered this in my pile of books I bought but haven’t read yet (I’m still digging in to this).
“(common descent, which is tantamount to abiogenesis in the final analysis, IMO)”
Um. No. Whether or not the ball was set rolling my a majikal man with a majikal plan does not change the fact of evolution. Find a deity who managed to get His (or her or it’s) creation story correct and you might have something.
“Truly, the evolutionist has no clothes.”
Only the fossil record, cladistics and genetics. That’s not much compared to Special Revelation, admittedly, but then everybody knows that Allah is God and Muhammad is his prophet. Obviously.
“Well, of course, ‘kind’ roughly equates to Family.”
Didn’t you say “Order” earlier? That’s a fair bit of difference. Kinds being like Family puts us with the Great apes, and the other puts us with all Primates. I’m guess that you meant neither, at least where homo sapiens sapiens is involved.
“Secondly, I am not exactly sure what would be considered evidence for something outside of a kind (yet still genetically ancestral)”
Fish genes. In you. From fish. Old fish. New you. Fish. Among others.
Oh, boy. Another one went into the spam queue.
So I don't think you can pin this on the church directly.
Didn't you read the whole thing? Without xian influence such laws would never have been instituted (they weren't prior to xianity). The gov't. at the time was officially xian, and influences back and forth between church and state were extensive. Biblical passages and church fathers were explicit: death for hx acts. The emperors were merely implementing biblical edicts.
I'm sorry, but moral disapproval may be 'the foundation of homophobic attitudes,' using modern gay apologist rhetorical terms, but that is far from the pogroms you are suggesting. Not very convincing evidence of Christianity's long, brutal war on homosexuality.
Hold your horses! I'm just getting started.
>> LOUIS: The gov't. at the time was officially xian
Yes, Constantine's mistake, but not a Christian mistake, per se.
>> LOUIS: Without xian influence such laws would never have been instituted
That may be so, but to use this as evidence of Christianity's war on homosexuality is misleading.
>> MOD: Didn't you say "Order" earlier? That's a fair bit of difference.
Sure, but actually, setting it at Family is what the YECs estimate, and that's more granular anyway, which would, for instance, require more animals on the Ark, so that works in the skeptic's favor.
And as I said, they correlate ROUGHLY, because the defined difference between Order and Family are from the non-YEC model, so the Kind may be inbetween the two. So no disparity in my comments really.
>> MOD: Fish genes. In you. From fish. Old fish. New you. Fish. Among others.
Well, again, you assume:
– similarity means relatedness
– that the genes originated in the fish
– that gene transfer = evolution (it does not)
I have not <s>wasted</s> spent time researching the fish gene contention, but give me some references and I will find the YEC answer for you.
But let me save YOU some time. There is SOME data that appears on first glance, to support common descent. However, it is not conclusive, and there are other viable theories.
I claim not that evolution or creationism can be definitively proven or disproven, only that creationism fits the data BETTER as a model, and that evolution, contrary to popular brain-washing, is VERY VERY VERY poorly supported by science.
I repeat that to get through to the brainwashed masses who swallow the exaggerated and spun claims of evolutionary believers.
That may be so, but to use this as evidence of Christianity's war on homosexuality is misleading.
I think it's indicative of xianity's attitude and its influence at a crucial time in western history. Had xianity never existed, I doubt such laws would have been instituted (unless Islam did so later). Without those laws, which were the basis for later western laws, I doubt the persecution of gays would have been as bad. Add to them, the xian influence, and you have a recipe for disaster.
More historical data will come…(although I doubt any amount will convince you).
"I have not wasted spent time researching the fish gene contention, but give me some references and I will find the YEC answer for you."
Oh, bloody hell! Your Inner Fish. It's a book. I linked it earlier. Making of the Fittest. It's also a book. I also linked to it earlier.
>> More historical data will come…(although I doubt any amount will convince you).
I have no doubt that the Catholic church performed all kinds of persecutions – they persecuted true Christians and protestants. They were corrupt.
I have no doubt that Protestants had Sodomy laws, which I disagree with.
However, I have doubts that large scale, murderous planned, mass pogroms against gays really happened. And even when the supposed persecutions existed, I suspect that they weren't always singled out from the other sexual sins like adultery and promiscuity.
I suspect that most of what you are about to show me is not some consistent, systematic persecution based on scripture, but isolated incidents carried out by one-off leaders, many of which were political like the Roman one you mentioned.
I also doubt your assertion that gays have been largely accepted in other cultures and moral systems across time. I'm sure there were some (let's not forget Sodom), but I also suspect that the unnaturalness of homosexuality has been clear to humans across time, and like other perversions of nature, were abhorred by many types of people across history.
I also expect that it was accepted by many types of people across history, because sinful man has accepted all kinds of sexual sin across time as well.
Not on this thread. I searched for 'inner fish' and only found your last comment.
Tiktaalik roseae: Where's the Wrist?
An "Ulnare" and an "Intermedium" a Wrist Do Not Make: A Response to Carl Zimmer
Looks like the creationist sites haven't gotten to Making of the Fittest yet. But they will. I still think that Carrol's book will end up being highly speculative and grasping at straws while ingoring the obvious (that common descent did not happen, nor could it).
"Not on this thread. I searched for 'inner fish' and only found your last comment."
Is the you that's on the other threads the you that's here? If so, is the you that's you paying attention?
Your first link is…odd. Lambasting Tiktaalik's proto-wrist as not wristy enough is like poking the dawn for not being bright enough. To us it's a proto-wrist. To Tiktaalik it was a wrist (the book does hop back and forth, using both terms for the same joint).
Also, the Tiktaalik part of Your Inner Fish is just the introduction. It's nice that a DI alumn managed to make it up to the cusp of chapter three. Take that, rest of book!
It's pointless. I give up.
>> Your first link is…odd.
Yeah, I haven't read them in their entirety. Honestly, I don't have time to dig in to much of the minutae of evolutionist defenses. It's like a non-christian looking into the various theological doctrines of various sects.
Interesting to some, but meaningless to most. Once in a while i jump back in to look deeply to see if evolutionists have come up with anything new and significant, and this might be one. But I lost my faith in evolution long ago, and going back to it only feels like going backwards to a failing system buttressed by foolishness, just like an anti-religionist might when considering faith.
Remember, ToE isn't the individual details. It's the totality of the evidence. That, in part, is why "Darwinism" is so insulting.
>> ToE isn't the individual details. It's the totality of the evidence.
That's the evolutionist's whole problem. First, they conflate all of the evidence together, like for natural selection, adaptation, or gene transfer, thinking that this evidence supports their theory, when it does not.
It merely supports the accepted natural mechanisms that even creationists support, but they make the jump to thinking that this actually helps prove macroevolution, when it really does not.
Secondly, they assume that there is lots of evidence in support of evolution, when really, there's just lots of data available, but little of it points to common descent or macro-evolution, and plenty points away.
Darwinism is 'insulting' to an evolutionist? Because 'evolution' is 'so much more'? Yes, evolution is everything – we bow down and worship. Blech. Evolution is for the gullible.
Evolution is for the gullible.
…says the chrisitianist fanatic. You are truly a joke.
This thread is way off topic, so I am closing the comments.