Jump to content

The Gender Bender

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


The Gender Bender last won the day on July 22 2010

The Gender Bender had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1737 Excellent

About The Gender Bender

  • Rank
  • Birthday 01/01/1991

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Name
  • School
  • Biography
    i <3 jennifer nikopol
  • Location
    the grimmest frozen forests of the norselands where dark ancient rites take place.
  • Interests
    teh sex0r :D
  • Occupation
    i forget what i had in this field
  1. already 'rome' looks dope: loving this track!
  2. dude, no offense. but your elected leaders are fucking dicks.
  3. Judge temporarily blocks Wisconsin anti-union law http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42158147/ns/politics-more_politics
  4. i'll get to this. but just so we're clear can we agree that we have shifted the discussion from "slave morality" (morality based on intention a la Nietzche) to exploring the Bible's take on the institution of slavery?
  5. Also, I've been meaning to address this because, I mean, this is a thread for "defending faith." I think Christianity says all are slaves to something. And, most of our lives are driven by destructive things instead of by good (righteous) things. That being said slavery is an analogy (v. 19) used to demonstrate what is allegedly a deeper concept of ethics.
  6. Have any of yall read The Seven Deadly Sins: Jewish Christian, and Classical Reflections on Human Psychology by Solomon Schimmel?
  7. Making sense of what is viscerally wrong is difficult -- especially at that magnitude. It is a good thing you cannot accept things the way they are. It should bother you.
  8. For the question of "Is there God?" One of the most familiar of a series of arguments from Thomas Aquinas is the Argument from Efficient Causes The more difficult question is how do we know the character of God? I would think most Christians appeal to the authority of the Bible & the example of Jesus Christ therein. There are philosophical perspectives like aforementioned argument presented by CS Lewis in Mere Christianity that the innate recognition of 'good' across cultures & time indicates it must have been placed within us. Or, in the case of Ken Miller a perspective of good as contrast to evil that cannot be explained as "social constructions or artifacts of evolution." (eg. genocide.) For some there is an introspective, spiritual element: "God just is & God is good and these are confirmed by a series of events that cannot be dismissed as coincidence." And, so on. There's also some good commentary on this subject in Talmudic thought but I'd have to dig it up. I don't think anyone in this forum contests the theory of evolution. In terms of evil & its relation to God. One thing that was brought to my attention is that God knows good and evil. (Genesis 3:22) Apparently, knowledge in the Hebrew in this context isn't "awareness" but something more intimate - as in, a man knows his wife. For what that information is worth. A personal aside regarding the driving motivation of your questions: I know this is a debate forum and I highly value logic in discussion. However, if my brushes with anthropology have taught me anything it is this: the predominant way we glean knowledge from this world, the way we construct & perceive knowledge is but one of many. It would be hubristic if we were to believe there is only one method to understand the world and ourselves; it would be greatly to our disadvantage if we only valued that which is in the realm of & acknowledged by our sciences. I do not think the foundation of the issues we are discussing can be proven. But that does not mean there is no value in understanding. So if we can get that out of the way...
  9. really? really?? we are using justin beiber to prove a point? respect your opponent, retired.
  10. I don't think he is arguing against biological determinism so much as demonstrating that free will -- with all the accompanying suffering -- is preferable to the alternative (being the puppets of God.)
  11. yeah, ken miller says this. (1:19:05) Ken Miller, author of Finding Darwin's God & professor of biology at Brown Question: What is the source of morality? Miller: [That is] a good question. I think one way to look at it is sort of the simplistic theistic way which is 'morality is a series of commands given us by the Almighty.' So you've got the ten commandments, and you have a bazillion commandments which are in Leviticus and other books in the Bible about not mixing fabrics and keeping kosher tables, and that sort of stuff. In that sense -- and that's what I call the simplistic sense -- morality is a series of arbitrary commands from the Almighty that we are supposed to obey. But I take a different view and I think most serious philosophers take a different view. CS Lewis in his book Mere Christianity argued for the existence of God on the basis of what he called a 'universal moral law.' And, the insight that CS Lewis had is that all people everywhere in all cultures share a common sense of morality. No matter what culture you grew up in people have a sense that stealing is wrong, that assault is wrong, that rape is wrong, that murder is wrong. Now these things happen in all these societies but there's no place you can visit and someone says, "Hey, I'm very proud of our town. I want to show you our number one murderer or our number one rapist," or something along those lines. So where do we get that sense? Now what Lewis argued from this notion of a universal moral sense is that it had to be there, had to be in us, because God put it there. That's a compelling argument but I don't find it to be persuasive. And the reason for that is I think there are perfectly good evolutionary arguments for why evolution could put the moral sense in our species to enable us to hang together as a society and be successful as a species. But having said that I do think -- and this is actually one of the reasons why I find theism attractive -- I do think that good and evil are real, that they are not just social constructions, that they are just not artifacts of evolution. I think evolution has enabled us to develop a kind of moral reasoning by which we can almost as an inner sense say 'this is wrong, and this is right' in the same way that we sort of invent mathematics to fit things in nature. So I don't know if that's an answer to the question of where does morality come from. But I think the first principle of morality is basically to regard all other human beings as being equally --and, again this is the theistic answer-- equally made in the image and likeness of God and therefore due as much respect and consideration as you are. I think that is one of the reasons for selfless acts of the type that we were talking about before is that first principle. So for me, morality does not come from a series of arbitrary commands, it comes from what I would regard as a God given respect for fellow human beings.
  12. are you calling me ignant? :mad: i will cuuuuutchu
  13. will you guys please shut the fuck up. adults are conversing here. in a thread about a particular policy one expects you to uphold or critique it; you would discuss the dem's universal health policy in a thread about the dem's universal health policy. so if you really treated religious groups as political parties, in this particular thread you would have supported/critiqued certain doctrines & commitments of Baha'i [or christianity], which is in the realm of theology/apologetics. and it would have looked something like this: critique of 2 christian doctrines to justify 3rd so even if one goes by your definition of religion as politics, what you posted is like... in the middle of the discussion of the democratic party's policy one saying: "political parties can only do harm. to suggest that political ideology is necessary for social order is ludicrous." it's like, awesome, i dig on discussions about anarchy -- so why are you an anarchist? to answer the question would be to lay out chronologically the development of such an opinion -- there are usually good personal stories, authors & philosophy behind deviance. unless, of course, it is rebellion for the sake of being rebellious without a comprehensive understanding of what it is one is rejecting. and the reality behind that tends to be more asinine, image-conscious things like a want to conform to fashion cliques or other general peer acceptance related things. (in the case of anarchy) it's becoming increasingly difficult for me to take people (not you necessarily) who hate on christianity [read: religion] seriously when -- especially in this country -- they haven't read through the New Testament [relevant texts.] it's like, come on didn't you take western civ? to hate something entails an understanding of what it is, no? my opinion on ignorance is this: ignorance of someone/thng is acceptable if 1. one feels neutral about the particular subject or 2. it is irrelevant to the people/society one lives in. otherwise, it's a terrible, ugly thing. i digress. i like asking about people's opinions like yours, foremost, cause it's interesting. you obviously do not feel neutral about the issue of religion. i would like to know what it is you know about it that i may not. the reason i want to know is because it is relevant to the people/society i live in. cool? tl;dr -- so, when did you come to the conclusion that religion is bunk?
  14. You didn't say theism bad. You said religion bad. I'm not asking you to prove there isn't God. I am curious as to why you are emphatically anti-religion. For example: If you were a child whose family was aided by world vision & your parents had a favorable view of the Christians in it's local church regardless of whether or not you thought there was God you wouldn't necessarily think religion was bad. On the other hand, if you were a dissident during the Spanish Inquisition, I can see where you would have your scruples.
  • Create New...