sysvr4

I'm intrigued. Can you elaborate on the fabric of society? The basic foundation of the family unit. Man/woman/children. Ah. Yeah, I can see how homosexuality is totally undermining the inherent structures that support our civilization. Marriage is the RE-union of man and woman. Adam was created, Eve was made from Adam's body - she was a part of him, reunited in marriage and through children. Marriage is a re-union between male and female as much as it is a union between one specific man and one specific woman. Homosexuality DOES undermine society. Male and male were never intended by God to be united, never mind reunited. Taken to a logical conclusion, if all men were homosexual the human race would cease to be. Homosexuality is intrinsically destructive since it promotes a discontinuation of life. Homosexuals cannot procreate. All activity that leads to destruction is of the devil. God is a God of creation and abundance and multiplication. The devil is rightly called "The Destroyer" as all his ways lead to destruction and death. Homosexuality is not intrinsically destructive. If it is destructive, it is arbitrarily so. Homosexuality does nitrate promote a discontinuance of life. Limited homosexuality does not imply the global homosexuality required to suport your conclusion. It is also noteworthy that procreation is not necessarily a matter of Godly "abundance."

No, the examples you used had nothing to do with the differences between absolute and realtive truth. Again, that is not an example of relative truth. Absolute truth and relative truth do not pertain to differences of opinon, tradition, religious observance and so forth. What we are dealing with in terms of what truth is, are behavioral pardaigms. REAL Truth is always fixed. "Relative truth" is a human concoction. The Bible deals solely with truth in an absolute sense, which is why the moral code the Bible contains is so offensive to human nature. Absolute truth implies accountability. Accountablity indicates that that we are responsible beofore SOMEONE for our actions. So, the response of mankind is to deny the existence of absolute truth, thus removing (at least one's own mind) the reality of potential accountability. Truth then becomes a matter of opinion and behavior becomes a matter of personal prefence and no single preference is more right or wrong than any other. Thus, homosexuality is seen as being as normal and healthy as hetrosexuality. So long as your actions don't infringe on the preferences of someone else or cause them harm, then you free to practice whatever form of "morality" that your heart dictates. So, what is the definition of relative truth? Edited to add that I am thinking of postmodernism. I believe the term "relative truth" may be a misnomer. The concept as presented appears poorly understood.

Is sin a slippery slope? Can you be elaborate on your reasoning?

Perhaps the question is not whether truth is absolute or relative but rather, what is the difference and how does it relate to our perception of reality, or our presumptions of certainty?

Why what?

It's more than just homosexuality. If you read deeper with my op, you will see that the idea is changing even still - same sex marriages between heterosexual couples. It will be soon that marriage obviously won't be simply for procreation at all - but more to protect ones assests. If gay marriages are to be recognised/accepted worldwide - then it opens the floodgates for ANY type of marriage union. Do you see? The "slippery slope" is often a fallacy. Are you certain it is not so here?

From Acts 16:31 - "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."

The flow chart (and this) are based on the same logical fallacy. They are both false dilemmas.

I'm intrigued. Can you elaborate on the fabric of society? The basic foundation of the family unit. Man/woman/children. Ah. Yeah, I can see how homosexuality is totally undermining the inherent structures that support our civilization.

I'm intrigued. Can you elaborate on the fabric of society?

"Has anyone else heard of this?" No, but that's probably because it's an incredibly stupid idea. The solution to the problem presented isn't marriage, gay or otherwise. It's a well-prepared will. ...duh? You'd think - The workmate said this idea is from the US...I wouldn't be surprised somehow if this idea gathers momentum - stupid or not..it's simply the signs of the end times I'm afraid.. Wait, what? Stupid people are the signs of the end times? We'd be long gone already if that were the case.

"Has anyone else heard of this?" No, but that's probably because it's an incredibly stupid idea. The solution to the problem presented isn't marriage, gay or otherwise. It's a well-prepared will. ...duh?

The numbers are meaningless.

I don't understand why people want to go to Heaven in the first place. Because it beats the heck out of the alternative, N.C. I heard there is no free will though in Heaven, to me it seems an eternity without free will would be hell. Presumably you wouldn't be aware of your lack of free will.

I really can't argue this because some of the smartest people I know have no degree but, instead, have educated themselves to the point where they can routinely outshine degreed people. I work with a couple of them. Exactly. Personal interest and dedication is what's important, wherever you intend to obtain your education from.

Computer science was my major in college but once I graduated I learned AutoCad and, later, Pro-E and SolidWorks and became an engineer (there are more jobs here in Houston for process engineers.) I can see how theoretical physics would put a question mark on everything though. Have you already graduated? I don't put much faith in education, but yes. (As an aside, I've read good things about AutoCad, but never put much into it. I've done most of my (somewhat related) work in Maya.) You use Maya in your work? I've never used it but I've heard it's pretty neat. Of course, all software today is amazing compared to the original AutoCad I used in the nineties but that was state of the art then. I don't understand why you don't put much faith in education. I mean what can one do without it? I watched members of my family struggle in low paying jobs and said "Nope! Not me!" Education makes a big difference in your quality of life. I suppose I should say formalized education.

Computer science was my major in college but once I graduated I learned AutoCad and, later, Pro-E and SolidWorks and became an engineer (there are more jobs here in Houston for process engineers.) I can see how theoretical physics would put a question mark on everything though. Have you already graduated? I don't put much faith in education, but yes. (As an aside, I've read good things about AutoCad, but never put much into it. I've done most of my (somewhat related) work in Maya.)

I think I agree, but that aside, what do you think in general about the likelihood of life existing elsewhere? My response is in haste, however... The probability of existence of extraterrestrial life is dependent upon our presumptions regarding infinity. Yes. "Yes." ...what? Without useful input, I can't be expected to reach reasonable conclusions, can I? So you are an agnostic when it comes to the possibility of life on other worlds. We have no knowledge of life elsewhere, therefore, you are unwilling to speculate. Let's try to get at this from a different angle. How do you think life originated on Earth? Do you think the source of life is supernatural or that it is derived from natural events: special creation or natural happenstance? Have you an opinion or are you unwilling to speculate due to lack of scientific data? My view on the origins of humanity is that they are largely irrelevant, whatever they may be. God created us in a Biblically-literal manner, we evolved from whatever, we're an insignificant anomaly in the scope of infinite space-time, etc. It doesn't make any difference to me as a Christian, or as a scientist. I just don't find the subject to be significant or even terribly interesting. You're a scientist and you don't have any interest in the origin of man? Or any convictions or theories? What in heck do you do in your scientific career then? Tupperware? Why would a particular interest in the origin of man be necessary to support broader scientific interests? I've never heard of a scientist that wasn't interested in life's origins or one who didn't have a multitude of theories just dying to be pursued. So...what is your field of expertise or interest? Theoretical physics, computer science.

I think I agree, but that aside, what do you think in general about the likelihood of life existing elsewhere? My response is in haste, however... The probability of existence of extraterrestrial life is dependent upon our presumptions regarding infinity. Yes. "Yes." ...what? Without useful input, I can't be expected to reach reasonable conclusions, can I? So you are an agnostic when it comes to the possibility of life on other worlds. We have no knowledge of life elsewhere, therefore, you are unwilling to speculate. Let's try to get at this from a different angle. How do you think life originated on Earth? Do you think the source of life is supernatural or that it is derived from natural events: special creation or natural happenstance? Have you an opinion or are you unwilling to speculate due to lack of scientific data? My view on the origins of humanity is that they are largely irrelevant, whatever they may be. God created us in a Biblically-literal manner, we evolved from whatever, we're an insignificant anomaly in the scope of infinite space-time, etc. It doesn't make any difference to me as a Christian, or as a scientist. I just don't find the subject to be significant or even terribly interesting. You're a scientist and you don't have any interest in the origin of man? Or any convictions or theories? What in heck do you do in your scientific career then? Tupperware? Why would a particular interest in the origin of man be necessary to support broader scientific interests?

Which is inevitable in any socio-economic paradigm. What is at issue is how much government controls. Show me one single case in which Marxist philosophy has worked for the benefit of all equally. "Which is inevitable in any socio-economic paradigm." Exactly. I don't believe there is a case where Marxist philosophy has worked for the benefit of all, nor do I believe that it ever could. My point is that class division and the subsequent exploitation of the proletarian has virtually nothing to do with economi c or political philosophy. Actually it does, because the rich make all the rules. True that it doesn't matter which political philosophy is engaged. However for all the attempts at Marxism, and Communism, there has not been one country that has successfully distributed wealth evenly and thus avoided a society in which the abject poor are ruled predominantly by the filthy rich. This has not been the case for our Republic. Under our system the wealthiest 10% provide much of the economic wealth, jobs, and pay taxes which government utilizes to supplement income and support the bottom 20-30%. We are now setting precedents in our country in which government is increasingly involving itself in, and even owning, private industry. Our own history is testimony to the fact that, once government begins to control something (eg. environmental regulations) it never relinquishes that control. Recently we have been learning how truly controlled our elected officials are by private interest groups and lobbyists. Government cannot be bought, but politicians can be bought. So with these two trends occurring simultaneously we are being set up for a Marxist-type government; one in which there is predominant influence or control of private industry, a majority population dependence upon government-run social and welfare programs, and in which the wealthiest minority control policy and reap the benefits of our GNP. "This has not been the case for our Republic. Under our system the wealthiest 10% provide much of the economic wealth, jobs, and pay taxes which government utilizes to supplement income and support the bottom 20-30%." And that's a reasonable system? The establishment allowing the poor to subsist on scraps while exploiting cheap labor in order to support the military-industrial complex as its means of self-preservation? Are you a hippie? Like from the 60's? I heard that line in some old movie. Like, peace man.

Which is inevitable in any socio-economic paradigm. What is at issue is how much government controls. Show me one single case in which Marxist philosophy has worked for the benefit of all equally. "Which is inevitable in any socio-economic paradigm." Exactly. I don't believe there is a case where Marxist philosophy has worked for the benefit of all, nor do I believe that it ever could. My point is that class division and the subsequent exploitation of the proletarian has virtually nothing to do with economi c or political philosophy. Actually it does, because the rich make all the rules. True that it doesn't matter which political philosophy is engaged. However for all the attempts at Marxism, and Communism, there has not been one country that has successfully distributed wealth evenly and thus avoided a society in which the abject poor are ruled predominantly by the filthy rich. This has not been the case for our Republic. Under our system the wealthiest 10% provide much of the economic wealth, jobs, and pay taxes which government utilizes to supplement income and support the bottom 20-30%. We are now setting precedents in our country in which government is increasingly involving itself in, and even owning, private industry. Our own history is testimony to the fact that, once government begins to control something (eg. environmental regulations) it never relinquishes that control. Recently we have been learning how truly controlled our elected officials are by private interest groups and lobbyists. Government cannot be bought, but politicians can be bought. So with these two trends occurring simultaneously we are being set up for a Marxist-type government; one in which there is predominant influence or control of private industry, a majority population dependence upon government-run social and welfare programs, and in which the wealthiest minority control policy and reap the benefits of our GNP. "This has not been the case for our Republic. Under our system the wealthiest 10% provide much of the economic wealth, jobs, and pay taxes which government utilizes to supplement income and support the bottom 20-30%." And that's a reasonable system? The establishment allowing the poor to subsist on scraps while exploiting cheap labor in order to support the military-industrial complex as its means of self-preservation? Are you a hippie? Like from the 60's? I heard that line in some old movie. Check out his blog, He's obviously operating on old software and a failed system of socieo-eco-political governance, that remains godless. Peace, Dave Old software? Debian isn't old, it's stable. Anyway, what exactly are you getting at? I'm not operating on any system of governance, godless or otherwise. Where did you get that from?

I think I agree, but that aside, what do you think in general about the likelihood of life existing elsewhere? My response is in haste, however... The probability of existence of extraterrestrial life is dependent upon our presumptions regarding infinity. Yes. "Yes." ...what? Without useful input, I can't be expected to reach reasonable conclusions, can I? So you are an agnostic when it comes to the possibility of life on other worlds. We have no knowledge of life elsewhere, therefore, you are unwilling to speculate. Let's try to get at this from a different angle. How do you think life originated on Earth? Do you think the source of life is supernatural or that it is derived from natural events: special creation or natural happenstance? Have you an opinion or are you unwilling to speculate due to lack of scientific data? My view on the origins of humanity is that they are largely irrelevant, whatever they may be. God created us in a Biblically-literal manner, we evolved from whatever, we're an insignificant anomaly in the scope of infinite space-time, etc. It doesn't make any difference to me as a Christian, or as a scientist. I just don't find the subject to be significant or even terribly interesting.

Which is inevitable in any socio-economic paradigm. What is at issue is how much government controls. Show me one single case in which Marxist philosophy has worked for the benefit of all equally. "Which is inevitable in any socio-economic paradigm." Exactly. I don't believe there is a case where Marxist philosophy has worked for the benefit of all, nor do I believe that it ever could. My point is that class division and the subsequent exploitation of the proletarian has virtually nothing to do with economi c or political philosophy. Actually it does, because the rich make all the rules. True that it doesn't matter which political philosophy is engaged. However for all the attempts at Marxism, and Communism, there has not been one country that has successfully distributed wealth evenly and thus avoided a society in which the abject poor are ruled predominantly by the filthy rich. This has not been the case for our Republic. Under our system the wealthiest 10% provide much of the economic wealth, jobs, and pay taxes which government utilizes to supplement income and support the bottom 20-30%. We are now setting precedents in our country in which government is increasingly involving itself in, and even owning, private industry. Our own history is testimony to the fact that, once government begins to control something (eg. environmental regulations) it never relinquishes that control. Recently we have been learning how truly controlled our elected officials are by private interest groups and lobbyists. Government cannot be bought, but politicians can be bought. So with these two trends occurring simultaneously we are being set up for a Marxist-type government; one in which there is predominant influence or control of private industry, a majority population dependence upon government-run social and welfare programs, and in which the wealthiest minority control policy and reap the benefits of our GNP. "This has not been the case for our Republic. Under our system the wealthiest 10% provide much of the economic wealth, jobs, and pay taxes which government utilizes to supplement income and support the bottom 20-30%." And that's a reasonable system? The establishment allowing the poor to subsist on scraps while exploiting cheap labor in order to support the military-industrial complex as its means of self-preservation?

Let's review your initial post on the subject: Beyond calling everybody basically stupid, who uses words like "proletariat" and "bourgeoisie" in normal conversation, beyond college professors? Why not just use lower class and middle class instead of trying to make it sound like you've been reading too much Lenin. Elitist? Only your hairdresser knows for sure, but it's pretty hard to make any sense out of the quote above or figure out exactly what you are trying to say. So class division and economics just exist in a vacuum all to themselves and have no effect on one another? And evidently, despite your assertions that marxism doesn't work, America should celebrate it's accelerating slide into marxism/socialism. America shouldn't celebrate any economic policy that supports exploitation of the weak for the gain of an autocratic establishment, I'm not certain why you believe I would assert otherwise.

Another unstable man kills an abortion doctor and it makes the top news story. Why don't you gripe about that being an issue? Ok. *gripe* It just hadn't come up in conversation, that's all.