TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Strange reason.Because your name starts with "TAG"
Somehow I doubt it.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Self-criticism in the American Left base
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
Somehow I doubt it.
BrightShadow
Active Member
Well I meant to address your post
Btw, we need objective morality
You don't believe in a creator?
When the Apple phone first came out - did it come with an instruction manual?
No?
We need instruction manual from our creator.
The manual is out there. Seek and find.
It tells you what is right and what is wrong and what should be left alone.
It shows you the path - it is not the destination.
So, yes! There is room for adjustments.
You have to learn and adopt certain things (i.e. Getting rid of Slavery).
But it doesn't give you a golden ticket to start messing with genes.
If the Instruction Manual was the same for each individual, no matter where they were born, you might have a point, but unfortunately we haven't got this, will never likely have such, so perhaps doing some thinking for oneself might be better - for those capable of doing so.
BrightShadow
Active Member
On certain topics - almost all known major religions advocate the same thing.If the Instruction Manual was the same for each individual, no matter where they were born, you might have a point, but unfortunately we haven't got this, will never likely have such, so perhaps doing some thinking for oneself might be better - for those capable of doing so.
This topic qualifies as a common problem.
The same voice is telling you - it is a no no!
Y is not an
. There can't be two Y's for a reason! Once you break that code - we are done! Point of no return!
You aren't looking closely enough then all around the world, given I don't see that much commonality apart from a majority believing in a single creator-type God.On certain topics - almost all known major religion advocate the same thing.
This topic qualifies as a common problem.
The same voice is telling you - it is a no no!
Y is not an
There can't be two Y's for a reason! Once you break that code - we are done! Point of no return!
BrightShadow
Active Member
What do the majority believe regarding this?
Do they agree with you?
If they don't then don't you think the majority should rule.
Why go against the majority?
Erm, that there is one Creator and that such created existence - in various ways, since they will not all agree even as to such though. As to sex and gender - no idea.
What has this to do with anything?
Majority opinions will not necessarily lead to truth. Not found this out yet? You might need to peruse history to find all the changes that have occurred over time - but much certainty (if there is ever such) will stop when you get to the first written material, even if our history continued from before then. And this subject is one such no doubt.
Wirey
Fartist
You are discussing the difference between sex and gender. There are two sexes. There are a plethora of genders. History is loaded with cases of societies that approved or disapproved of various expressions of sexuality, but the X-Y chromosome thing is sex, and yes, there are two sexes. Gender being directly derived from sex is a human creation strongly linked to religious and social paradigms. And there are multiple genetic defects that wind up with them being mixed differently. XXX, XXY and XYY being the most common.On certain topics - almost all known major religions advocate the same thing.
This topic qualifies as a common problem.
The same voice is telling you - it is a no no!
Y is not an
There can't be two Y's for a reason! Once you break that code - we are done! Point of no return!
Trisomy X - Wikipedia
Klinefelter syndrome - Wikipedia
XYY syndrome - Wikipedia
Since, according to most religions, God supplies life to each baby, and that God is incapable of error, it would appear that your argument is in fact without merit. God puts two Ys in the occasional kid just for kicks.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I just explained to you that the closest we have to that is secular / humanistic morality. Curiously though, you decided not to quote that part.
I don't, but even if I did, that doesn't change anything.
A morality from authority isn't objective. It's subjective to that authority.
An objective morality would have to be based in fact, not in opinion. That's kind of what "objective" means.
A morality dictated by an authority, would be a morality according to that authority's opinion. Hence, subjective.
Instruction manuals deal with how things work, not with ethics.
No. Instruction manuals tell you how things work.
For example, an iphone manual will tell you how to make a photograph using the camera app. It deals with operation.
It would not tell you not to send d*ck pics to random women, which deals with ethics.
The bible and quran "manual" tells you that keeping slaves is ok.
I don't know where you got your "information", but I assure you that homesexuality, transexuality, transgenderism etc has nothing to do with "messing with genes".
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
You should read up on the argumentum ad populum.
BrightShadow
Active Member
Where are you going with this?
Are you in favor of a Man with XY chromosome competing with Women with XX chromosome?
No?
Then give it a rest.
What were we talking about?
A biological man trying to pass as a biological female and compete in women's sports.
Are you okay with a man competing with women?
Why are you trying switch gears and go into homosexuality realm?
Is that your thing? I mean switching gears - that is.
Wirey
Fartist
I wasn't 'going' anywhere. I was just pointing out that you don't seem to be differentiating between sex and gender. I wasn't sure if you knew the difference.
Alien826
No religious beliefs
I mean...
I guess there are so may leftists in the United States.
People who believe in social equality, in economic fairness, in a juster and more egalitarian system.
Do you really think that the Democratic Party is a leftist party?
I mean ...it's filled with speculators, banksters, people who worship the Military Industrial Complex...Big Pharma.
Do you ever engage in self-criticism?
Something like: maybe if we got rid of all these wealthy opportunists...we would recover credibility?
Thank you.
Yes, I think that the Democratic party should return to its roots, representing the "working" population and dumping the billionaire influence. But, what if that guaranteed many more years of right wing rule?
Here's a question for you, and it's one of principle, rather than practicality. Should a political party have a set of policies that reflect their morally held principles and campaign on that, regardless of what they think the electoral result will be? Or form their policies to reflect what is most likely to get them elected?
Nice. Hopefully.
The anti-banking speeches make you win...always. I can promise you that.
What is a party?
A party is an elitist group of people who proposes their own agenda to the voters?
Because in my view a party is a group of commoners that share the same values and decide to found a party.
But again...there are dozens of parties here, in my country. So...
there are so many different ideologies.
Well...if they want to get elected, they should do what the people wants them to do.
So...yes, absolutely. They should form their policies on the basis of the voters' needs and desires.
No. We do not. When we do get instruction manuals, they not only seem to contradict each other, but they negatively impact prosperity, safety, happiness, and social justice, and the more fervently we adhere to their instructions, the more repressive and aggressive society becomes.
Look at the various countries around the world. The least corrupt, safest, most prosperous and happiest are the least religious ones. The most religious are repressive, poor, corrupt and violent. Compare Western Europe with the Middle East, for example.
There are dozens of such manuals. How to choose....
In re. The Bible, its "morality" is cruel, unjust, unfair, and often makes no sense.
But God condones slavery. The Bible gives specific instructions on who you can enslave, how you can enslave them, how you should beat them, &c.
Have you even read the Bible? Do I need to cite passages?
Who's messing with genes? What's wrong with messing with genes? For that matter, the Bible doesn't give us a ticket to do most of what we now do in our lives.
Last edited:
BrightShadow
Active Member
I specifically said - most religion would agree on this ground. I did not say there are no contradictions.
This is not the religious part of the forum.
I did say - certain doctrines just show you the way - it is not the destination.
I even showed you what will happen when you mess with the genes. Look at the pic
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Have you already lost track?
Which has nothing to do with "messing with genes".
Second, no biological man is "trying to pass as a biological female".
Depends on the discipline. In general, I would say that sports that are segregated, are so for a reason. In those cases, no.
I'm not. Do you have attention span problems? I said "...I assure you that homesexuality, transexuality, transgenderism etc has nothing to do with "messing with genes"."
No. Your thing however seems to be arguing strawman, moving the goalpost and faking misunderstanding what people are saying.Is that your thing? I mean switching gears - that is.
I also note you completely ignored the morality part of the post. It's okay.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Sounds like you have been watching to much Stargate Sg1. You realize that the Asgard aren't real and that Stargate is not a documentary, right?