[QUOTE="ferrari2001"]lol, someone knows absolutely nothing about Christianity. According to John Paul II sex is an enormous mutual self gift from God, in which two people join in the trinitarian union.There is no greater gift in which two persons can share. Sex is a 2 part union of both pleasure and procreation. foxhound_fox

I can't find the verse right now, but it says in the bible according to St. Paul that (and I'm paraphrasing, obviously) married couples should have sex AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE unless both agree to abstain (so that neither denies the other, but both agree on a course of action). So.....biblical truth right there. Wait tell marrage, then so long as you two agree, have as much fun as you want. Seems like a wise course of action ;)

I would say that your logic, while certainly thoughtout, is still a play on words. We can look at the placenta as say that is the foundation for future life, simply because it keeps the growing fetus alive and gives it nutrients and various other things from the mother. But the zygote (the fertilized egg) is a union between two potentials to create life. Life, as I have been learning in various bio classes in university, is simply more complex than we think. A single celled organism can be considered life (bacteria, protists, etc). If that is true, why do we have a hard time considering the fertilized egg life when it clearly has all the characteristic needed to create a future organism? Sperm and eggs cant do that alone. The fertilized egg is not a potential for new life, but the start of it.

10/10. I urged anyone who doesn't really like it or likes 1984 (which I still love) more to discuss the themes of this book with a friend. You will find that society is gravitating towards this sort of world. 1984 might be more interesting because its "evil" is the upper class (or some form of it) but brave new world is a better representation, in my view, of what unethical application of science can result in: a world restricted by excessive and free sex, drugs, mindlessness, without any progression or "truth/beauty" as the book calls it. No sin/"wrong doing"=no consequences for ones destructive or worthless actions. Thats why one of my favorite quotes of all times is: "But I don't want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness, I want sin." Brave New World is truly a vision of the future.

Wait, why am I feeding the trolls?

gamerguru100

Don't worry man, these guys are idiots. Yes, in fact, I use to feel the same way. I have a friend who, right now (we are in college now btw) feels the same way. It comes to a point where your bad social skills give way to disinterest in others. This is a double whammy, because at first your just bad at making friends. But then, your disinterst in others actually makes others think you are aganist them in some way, or you do not like their company, so you grow even more distant. I just want to tell you that it is not unusual what you are feeling, but neither should you settle on the status quo. My friend, he got really social as soon as he started college, but then fell into his old habits again. Try your best to strike up a friendship. Smile a lot (don't be weird, just be pleasant). Maybe get to know one person or so, and if you get invited to a movie night, you might meet the rest of his or her friends. Just don't give up, try to be social, try to TALK (I had serious issues with this, because I always though ppl judged me or were laughing at me, etc, but try to get such thoughts out of your head). Most importantly, don't think your the only guy on earth who faces this issue. Many ppl do, and its sad, because all they need is to let in just one good friend and they will find many. Have a church group? It is best to start there. Have some other group, a club maybe, or a sport? Make a friend there. Do whatever, try to strike up a conversation. Maybe you'll never be the center of attention. But you don't have to feel left out; and it will make school that much more bearable, and even fun!

[QUOTE="GazaAli"][QUOTE="hillelslovak"] I wasn't trying to be a douche, I would rather have someone actually have a rebuttal than a "whatever" type of response......hillelslovak

I am probably at least slightly infamous on this board for being anti-social progressive (which, I admit, is sometimes too much), and I at times ask myself: "why do I provoke when there is no reason to do so?" I made a topic earlier that I refused to follow through because of this reason. I think you should consider also this question. These religions you have criticized have a rich history and have influenced the world in innumerous positive ways. For you to call out followers of these religions as merely derivative, then say all you wanted was an honest rebutte, is like me calling out a social progressive as insane then hoping for him to agree with me.

Pose your question in such a way to show interest in why there are connections between, for example, judism, and some earlier religion. That way you avoid harsh or mute responses. Trust me, I am the master of inciting anger and being an all around idiot, and it does not aid an intellectual conversation.

OP seems to think that women and gays want equality for the sake of being "progressive". I think they want equality because nobody wants to be considered inferior. I'm sure you'd feel the same.F1_2004

Oh let me make something clear: Women are equal to men, and gays equal to heterosexuals. I have had one or two homosexual teachers that I deeply respected for their intellect and teaching ability. Women.....well, its just silly to say they are unequal to men. I need not mention all the women generals throughout history which make men look like sissies (no pun intended). What I am saying is that behavior, such as homosexuality, is certainly not normal. Whether or not men accepted it, women have always played a critical role in the military, intellectual, and simply the advancement of civilization over time, b/c claims of inequality could not change reality. Homosexual relationships are clearly, however, not equal to heterosexual ones, from the mere fact that they can not reproduce, amongst other issues. Now I know how social progressives will respond: "but, but, its love!!" Its that thinking which as made divorce rates up to 50% in the USA. Sadly, my friends, a whim and physical attraction does not constitute "love" nor does "love" constitute all that is marriage.

I appreciate all the nods to ancient Greeks. You are supporting what I have been saying all along - Greeks invented everything.

entropyecho

Hmmmm, impressive, I see what you did there.....lol. Well, I understand that listening to what I have to say is not a part of the open-minded approach taken by social progressives. I used ancient Greece, ironically, b/c I found it most relevant to a discussion of the progression of western ideas. Guess people sort of missed my point.....or refused to see it all together.

What makes them think they are "progessive?" Do you think the legalization of drug use as not been tried before? Do you think that give women abortions now is some sort of liberation, when it has been going on for centuries? Do you think homosexuals are finally being freed, when the Greeks and the Romans (to a lesser extent) accepted same-sex relationships (to a smaller extent, aka before marriage)? Do you guys think (and I'm speaking to social progressives here, not Democrats, but social progressives, since I prefer a more centrist economic policy) that these "new" ideas are the crux of human development? Take the example of women's rights. Women were given equal treatment by many societies and even central figures (like Jesus for example), yet when society settles on a particular idea (in this case, Aristotle's theory of women being the form and man the substance, a huge influence in medeval Europe) they change all the rules to suit their beliefs. Likewise many of you think that this is it: all these changes will be for the better, and humanity will be freed from prejudices, wrongs of the past, and idiocy of the "less developed/less intelligent" humans that came before us. Yet we all see that humans reiterate the same tired old ideas over and over again, in a never ending circle, refusing to live simple lives, but always making new movements, claiming new modes of thought, believing in some new way of life. Take the recent issue of a prom being closed over a lesbian student. Is she showing off? It is a possibility: school girls, to attract boys, often act in sensual manners with other girls. But that is beside the point: so she is gay apparently, and as all of the leaders of this movement expound, these people need equal rights, because their love is equal to that of a heterosexual. Forget the impossibility of genetic factors predisposing one to homosexuality. Forget the abandonment of the purpose of marriage(family unit based on love, key word being "family" or one's own offsprings). Forget that nature predisposes man to be man and women to be women, forget all that. We decide sexuality. Lol and social progressives imagine that their ideas are fresh. Well, I can tell you this: Greeks had their time, but their philosophies passed away. Likewise, consider your philosophies like a drug: you get people excited, get peopled aboard the idea, but when they try it out and enjoy its initial effects, they, after addiction, regret their actions. I'm not saying we should write off, for example, homosexuals: they have feelings, and we should determine scientifically why those feelings exist. But to accept every whim every person makes is to be a fool who disregards the past as primative, and the future as enlightening.

As a historian will point out in relation to the "end of the world:" every generation has thought it was the last. I say add to that ideas: every generation has thought it was the best, the brightest, at the peak of a new world order. Time for a reality check

[QUOTE="Lockedge"]Aye. They're laws for a different time. Most religious leaders I know acknowledge much of the old testament, but understand a lot of it isn't applicable to modern times because it is already within it's historical context. Leviticus, Deuteronomy...those books are meant for the tribe God was leading, and that tribe only, pretty much. They were to protect the tribe from falling into other traditions and following other Gods.mindstorm

Yes but you stating your opinion as if it were Scripture. And generalizations are never true.LJS9502_basic

Your right, and most (not all) of the laws are the same in christianity as well as moses' law. But the punishments are clearly different.