sinker 0 #101 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteto suds and rehmwa... natural law isn't primarily concerned w/ laws of nature, as i've said... it also is concerned w/ moral law as well. So you're saying it's a misnomer. It also sounds like it's a misleading term for something subjectively determined by the Church. No arguing against that, then. Carry on. Gotta agree - if an organization wants to redefine words to match their sets of rules, then more power to them. Churches do it, political parties do it. Control a society's language and eventually you do control how people think. We won't ever have to talk someday as all the words won't have any real meaning then due to all the conflicting organizations that understand this principle. Then finally we can start assessing people on their actions. natural law and laws of nature aren't the same thing... google it... -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #102 December 1, 2005 Quotenot true, b/c remember, we're not just animals... we're moral creatures. you can't get around that... men shouldn't go around impregnating as many women as they can, I can see that at some point in history, that's exactly what should happen, population must grow to point of complexity for a society to develop. Genetics must be spread about to keep defects down, etc. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #103 December 1, 2005 Quoteno, not just "determined" by the church... adhered to by them, but by others as well... Biology is not subjective (low nutrients leads to hunger). Physics is not subjective (jump off my balcony sans BASE gear and you leave an asphault divot). Morality is, however. Some Islamic states require women to cover up. Some Bible Belt states require forms and sworn non-pleasure-related reasons to buy a rubber cock. Subjective laws. Monogamy (as a moral requirement to overcome our instinct) is entirely a subjective law. It is written, not TAGC-encoded. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #104 December 1, 2005 Quotenot true, b/c remember, we're not just animals... we're moral creatures. you can't get around that... The hell I can't. We're animals. More sentient than others? Absolutely. That gives us shitloads more flexibility in the realm of free will. Quotemen shouldn't go around impregnating as many women as they can By whose rules??? Quote b/c unlike lesser animals who can instinctively, w/ some learning, survive in the wild, babies need a lot of support, love, teaching, etc.... from a mother and a father... and the environment where that most favorable is a monogamous heterosexual marriage. The *only* valid reason up with which I can come off the top of my head is that we currently participate in a complex society. And in order to function best in this society, we humans need all that nurturing you've described. Let's get hypothetical here: Let's get a group of babies, throw in some toddlers for some variety, give 'em some easy access to food for a while (weaning them off so they can learn to fend for themselves), and let 'em loose in the wild without language or rules. Watch what happens over time. You might be surprised just how animal we are without modern environmental conditioning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #105 December 1, 2005 do some reading on natural law.... "asphault divot" ick. bad visual. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #106 December 1, 2005 Quote Let's get a group of babies, throw in some toddlers for some variety, give 'em some easy access to food for a while (weaning them off so they can learn to fend for themselves), and let 'em loose in the wild without language or rules. Watch what happens over time. You might be surprised just how animal we are without modern environmental conditioning. ahhh, memories......{sniffffff} good times, good times I miss the old treehouses. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #107 December 1, 2005 Quote monogamy is not a violation of natural law, it is a fulfillment of it. The phrase Natural Law is really a misnomer that has been passed for the ages: it is not natural law , it is the law of how God (or man) wants us to DEFY natural law. It is fulfillment of GOD's law (or man's depending on how you fall on the whole God thing) to have monogramy. Nature, on the whole, is not big on monogamy. Just because some humans enjoy it does not mean it is the natural way of things. But I understand the idea behind Natural Law. I just think it was a poorly, albeit cleverly, chosen phrase.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #108 December 1, 2005 Quotedo some reading on natural law.... I've read more than my fair share of teleological works, actually. I'm arguing against specifics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #109 December 1, 2005 QuoteThe hell I can't. We're animals. More sentient than others? Absolutely. That gives us shitloads more flexibility in the realm of free will. you can try but you won't succeed... you'll either land in jail, hurt your friends, hurt yourself, fail to be fully human, etc. QuoteBy whose rules??? natural law QuoteThe *only* valid reason up with which I can come off the top of my head is that we currently participate in a complex society. And in order to function best in this society, we humans need all that nurturing you've described. that isn't the only reason, by far. even if we lived in a far simpler society, it would still be the case, simple b/c of who we are as humans. QuoteLet's get hypothetical here: Let's get a group of babies, throw in some toddlers for some variety, give 'em some easy access to food for a while (weaning them off so they can learn to fend for themselves), and let 'em loose in the wild without language or rules. Watch what happens over time. You might be surprised just how animal we are without modern environmental conditioning. i never denied we're animal. but we're more than just animal. we've been over this before. mankind has the potential for so much more. to reduce mankind to just the animal is such an injustice. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #110 December 1, 2005 Quotenatural law Remember you're talking to a lot of people who believe the only natural law is "survival of the fittest". Survival of the fittest will favor those who put it about the most... thus it's highly likely that when we were living on the plains of Africa we lived in family groups where the dominant male maintained a harem of females - just like virtually all modern apes. Of course this was hundreds of thousands of years before God created the Earth 6000 years ago though so the point is probably moot from your point of view. BTW - is there anyone who is able to answer my earlier question about Priests being allowed to eat pork or shelfish? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #111 December 1, 2005 Quotefail to be fully human, By whose definition??? The others you pointed out are societal. QuoteQuoteBy whose rules??? natural law How? Quoteeven if we lived in a far simpler society, it would still be the case, simple b/c of who we are as humans. No. I disagree entirely with this. What you're failing to acknowledge is the extreme importance of the environmental conditioning factors in place. My aforementioned hypothetical specifically addressed the complete stripping of these, leaving the human naked with only what nature actually gives them. We've seen examples of this, mate. It's not very supportive of your beliefs. Quotemankind has the potential for so much more. to reduce mankind to just the animal is such an injustice. Injustice? Maybe so. But I implore you to look at the likelihood that much of the credit you give to mankind is the result of millenia of cultural and societal evolution and conditioning. Still the result of man's potential? Sure, I'll give you that. But not necessarily what is innate, that with which we are born. Nurture. Nature. There's a very distinct difference. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #112 December 1, 2005 QuoteRemember you're talking to a lot of people who believe the only natural law is "survival of the fittest". He's referring to a school of thought. Don't take it literally. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #113 December 1, 2005 QuoteWhat you're failing to acknowledge is the extreme importance of the environmental conditioning factors in place. My aforementioned hypothetical specifically addressed the complete stripping of these, leaving the human naked with only what nature actually gives them. We've seen examples of this, mate. It's not very supportive of your beliefs. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- mankind has the potential for so much more. to reduce mankind to just the animal is such an injustice. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Injustice? Maybe so. But I implore you to look at the likelihood that much of the credit you give to mankind is the result of millenia of cultural and societal evolution and conditioning. Still the result of man's potential? Sure, I'll give you that. But not necessarily what is innate, that with which we are born. Nurture. Nature. There's a very distinct difference. nurture/nature... all of that is part of what makes humans human. i hear what you're saying, but what I'm saying is that you can't remove/strip/take away the nurture w/o doing some violence to man. and, if you do, like in your hypothetical, as this little society of infants and toddlers grow and build and reproduce, they will start to evolve into, if given sufficient time, a fairly predictable and accurate microcosm of what we have today. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #114 December 1, 2005 QuoteBTW - is there anyone who is able to answer my earlier question about Priests being allowed to eat pork or shelfish? are you making a bad joke about sucking dick or eating pussy? -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #115 December 1, 2005 Quoteare you making a bad joke about sucking dick or eating pussy? No, absolutely not. It's quite a serious question. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,597 #116 December 1, 2005 Quoteare you making a bad joke about sucking dick or eating pussy? No I don't think he was but damn dude, take your mind out of the gutter. have you been hanging around with sudsy too long. I think he's talking about the bible things about not eating saltwater creepy crawlies and swine and stuff.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #117 December 1, 2005 Quotenurture/nature... all of that is part of what makes humans human. I disagree. The nature part is what makes humans human. The nurture part is what makes humans what they are today. Quotei hear what you're saying, but what I'm saying is that you can't remove/strip/take away the nurture w/o doing some violence to man. We'd definitely take away a lot of the modern joys, yes. I'd also agree that it would probably be more violent. Quoteif you do, like in your hypothetical, as this little society of infants and toddlers grow and build and reproduce, they will start to evolve into, if given sufficient time, a fairly predictable and accurate microcosm of what we have today. That's one possible outcome. It's also very possible that they kill themselves off before even reaching spoken language. Regardless, though, that possibility isn't indicative of a true nature [sic] of man. Pour enough water on a mountain, and it will become a plain, then eventually a sea; does this mean that the true nature of a mountain is a sea? Of course not. It's the water that makes the sea, not the mountain. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #118 December 1, 2005 Quotedamn dude, take your mind out of the gutter. have you been hanging around with sudsy too long. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #119 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuoteBTW - is there anyone who is able to answer my earlier question about Priests being allowed to eat pork or shelfish? are you making a bad joke about sucking dick or eating pussy? Woah I never ever heard that "word play" in my long life. Not even in my own language Not bad here at SC. I learn new things every day dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #120 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuoteare you making a bad joke about sucking dick or eating pussy? No, absolutely not. It's quite a serious question. sorry... no food restrictions for priests, i don't think, they aren't levitical priests, not jewish, not old testament priests... there is some new testament verse about the fulfillment of those old laws or something... now, there is the required fasting from red meat during lent... -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #121 December 1, 2005 QuoteI never ever heard that "word play" in my long life. Not even in my own language When I tell chicks, "Hey, maybe you should take a shower first; I'm not a big fan of sauerbraten," they usually just have this vacant stare in response... Uncultured tramps. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sinker 0 #122 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuoteI never ever heard that "word play" in my long life. Not even in my own language When I tell chicks, "Hey, maybe you should take a shower first; I'm not a big fan of sauerbraten," they usually just have this vacant stare in response... Uncultured tramps. bwahahaha! -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites christelsabine 1 #123 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuoteI never ever heard that "word play" in my long life. Not even in my own language When I tell chicks, "Hey, maybe you should take a shower first; I'm not a big fan of sauerbraten," they usually just have this vacant stare in response... Uncultured tramps. What I said: it's SC..... uaarrgghh dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mr2mk1g 10 #124 December 1, 2005 Quoteno food restrictions for priests, i don't think, they aren't levitical priests, not jewish, not old testament priests... there is some new testament verse about the fulfillment of those old laws or something... Funny that - because the passage the Vatican and Christian fundamentalists rely upon when they say that the bible condemns homosexuals is also from Leviticus. The same book which states that people must not eat pork because it is unclean, nor shellfish because they'll go to hell or even shave the sides of their beard. I never understood why one passage in the book is of vital importance and others are to be ignored. Who decides which bits of the Bible we should all throw out? Or are you now saying that all of the book of Leviticus should be ignored... because then there's nothing really stopping the Vatican from letting in gay priests is there? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sinker 0 #125 December 1, 2005 i'd ask you, what is the worse sin? murdering someone or steeling a pack of gum? -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 5 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
sinker 0 #122 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuoteI never ever heard that "word play" in my long life. Not even in my own language When I tell chicks, "Hey, maybe you should take a shower first; I'm not a big fan of sauerbraten," they usually just have this vacant stare in response... Uncultured tramps. bwahahaha! -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #123 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuoteI never ever heard that "word play" in my long life. Not even in my own language When I tell chicks, "Hey, maybe you should take a shower first; I'm not a big fan of sauerbraten," they usually just have this vacant stare in response... Uncultured tramps. What I said: it's SC..... uaarrgghh dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #124 December 1, 2005 Quoteno food restrictions for priests, i don't think, they aren't levitical priests, not jewish, not old testament priests... there is some new testament verse about the fulfillment of those old laws or something... Funny that - because the passage the Vatican and Christian fundamentalists rely upon when they say that the bible condemns homosexuals is also from Leviticus. The same book which states that people must not eat pork because it is unclean, nor shellfish because they'll go to hell or even shave the sides of their beard. I never understood why one passage in the book is of vital importance and others are to be ignored. Who decides which bits of the Bible we should all throw out? Or are you now saying that all of the book of Leviticus should be ignored... because then there's nothing really stopping the Vatican from letting in gay priests is there? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #125 December 1, 2005 i'd ask you, what is the worse sin? murdering someone or steeling a pack of gum? -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
