...sorry, what?
-
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!
Islam vs western values
- Thread starter Pro Gamer
- Start date
-
- Tags
- feminism liberalism shariah
...sorry, what?
Ah -- I see where you're coming from.
Thievery and high stimulus need are multi-factoral, much more so than simple homosexuality. One might be born with a propensity, but theft could also stem from cultural factors or actual need. Opinions on the nature-nurture ratio for these behaviors are all over the board.
The neural architecture, activation pathways, and gating visible in imaging studies on sexual orientation markers, however, has become pretty clear. Most clinicians today acknowledge a preponderance of "nature" over nurture.
Last edited:
It's all in the context of multiple postings.
And yet people can use the same thoughts and apply it just about anywhere. There are very strong stimulus in the act of sex and sexual attraction. Upbringing can influence how one responds to those stimuli. There are factors that can also stem from adverse experiences as a child.
As I see it, people want to set a position or a stance but limit it only in the area that they want it to apply to but do not want to extend it to the apex of what they are stating.
But when we come to the place where we begin believing that a boy who thinks he is a girl to then groom them into that lifestyle, we have violated scientific studies of all the issues that can cause that statement as children. Even to the point that we ignore that they don't even have a clue of what they are saying.
That being said, We all have a propensity of .... something. But we also have the capacity to control it and direct it correctly.
Science has proven that we can create new neural pathways by what we think. Negative thoughts kill portions of neural pathways but happy thought promote new pathways.
I believe the statement that as you believe in your heart, that is what you become, whether natural or unnatural. The more one thinks on it the more we can create it. One poster here said "I dream of stabbing people"... think on that long enough and they will!
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Agreed upon..
Naturally, satan will oppose it .. he always wants to confuse us with his lies and deceit.
So what's one to make of a child born with male genitalia but a female brain?
"Conversion therapy" has been tried has been tried, with poor results. Some neural wiring is more durable than other wiring. A left hander can learn to use her right hand proficiently, but a redhead can't change her hair color.
Sexual orientation appears well ensconced.
No. Sexual orientation is usually deeply embedded. Thinking yourself straight is usually futile.
I think we are deviating somewhat but let's entertain the thought.
First, of course, we have deviated from the standards of male genitalia and male brain and female genitalia and female brain (if we take mankind's designations and definitions as truth which it is possible that they aren't). So we really can't take the exception and them make it a rule for all people.
Second, XX and XY is the standard for male and female. These are immutable unless you have the deviations from the standard with XXY; OX et al. But these deviations are treated medically because the are not normal.
Last, usually an XY is bathed with testosterone which eliminates certain left/right brain nerves. People would call that a "male brain". I would simply call it a brain hooked up to a male body that has been bathed with testosterone. If, for some reason, an XY was bathed with less testosterone or maybe none at all, I would simply call it a brain with more left/right communication nerves. Man gave it a designation for study sake but the DNA remains the same. And same analogy but in reference to women.
But none of it changes XX or XY... simply how the brain operates.
Yes, there have been good results and bad results. There are people who have become heterosexuals.
Once again, we are close to saying that we cannot control ourselves so therefore, a kleptomaniac is born that way and we just have to let him do what he was created to do.
False equivalence would be to say "red hair" equals unchangeable brain... back to kleptomaniac. It has nothing to do with the brain.
Correct equivalence, you can train a left handed man to write with his right hand. It is how your brain is wired and how one can rewire it.
Let's not pick on homosexuality. Let's pick on heterosexuals. A man loves being sexual towards a woman. But he is married and the woman he wants to be sexual with is not his wife but he just isn't getting enough for his satisfaction so.... "I just can't help it - I was born that way". No, he has to control his desires. I know of a man that actually produced impotency because his wife was violated when she was a child. He loves her so much that he turned off that area of sexuality. The power of the mind.
Changeable / controllable IMU.
The real issue IMV.
It isn't what our brain waves want us to do otherwise kleptomaniacs are acceptable. It is what we decide what is right and what is wrong which dictates what standards we believe are good and what standards we believe aren't.
Killing evil, ends evil. I don't think killing is necessary evil on itself. However, I think people are not good enough to decide who should be killed. I think only God is good for to make that judgment. And I think He has right for that, because He has given life, unlike humans.
It looks like you think God should force everyone to be good, which I think is tyrannical.
Maybe people can change only themselves. And I think it is enough for every individual to take care that oneself is not tyrannical and evil. Perhaps that way the whole world would be less cruel.
I think it is good to understand first, that is the case only when they both are virgins. In the case of non-virgins, it would be adultery that can be punished with death. In the only case that the marrying is possible, I think it is the best option.
I don't think things are good just because God says it is so.
I think good God creates free people who can choose also poorly. And I think good God tells what would be the good way. If people after that go against good anyway and want evil, then I have no problem, if God doesn't allow the evil people to continue forever.
I think evil is, because some people love it. If people don't want to give up evil, what else there could be than death, if one wants to end evil?
Some times I have thought, perhaps hell could be a place for evil people. Then they could be as they want and could not harm those who don't like evil. But, maybe they would turn it eternal suffering for everyone there, that is why I believe hell is a place where soul and body are destroyed and evil people don't live eternally.
I think God does more than that. And I think He is better than humanists/democrats.
If there is really global warming, I don't believe it is because of humans. I don't believe there is really even global warming. I think the claim is a big scam to make people pay more and lose freedom.
It is what the Bible tells. I think it is interesting why mainstream theology overrides Biblical teachings.
I think that is true also. By what the Bible tells, Satan will be thrown into hell.
I don't think there is any Bible scripture that says "this is true". I think Bible is correct, because I see it to be correct.
That would be the most violent way to end it, but even then, just in one person. If I were a tri-omni god opposed to evil, evil wouldn't exist. It would be impossible to be or do.
Force? No, allow. Allow everyone to always be good and never do anything that leads to harming others, or shame, blame or guilt for oneself. What do you suppose heaven will be like regarding the presence or possibility of evil? Will there be evil acts? Will there be evil thoughts but the ability to refrain from expressing them? Or will evil be a thing of the past once in heaven?
That was in response to you saying, "I think "atrocities" that come from God, are a reward for being evil, people deserve them" followed by "Like forcing rape victims to marry their attacker?" Your response is a deflection from a discussion of whether such an act could ever be moral. So how about when they are both virgins? Is rape and forced marriage between virgins consistent with Christian ethics? It appears so.
Why not just kill the evil rapist and remove a bit of evil from the world? Or maybe you don't consider rape evil.
I don't think "God" exists or says anything, but you do, and I believe that anything you can be convinced this god said or did is good by definition. Why? Because you haven't and undoubtedly can't provide a falsifying example of something God says is good as you understand it, but you disagree, and also because you give no reasons for your beliefs. You just say what you believe, but not why. Even where you leave the mainstream as with your kindler, gentler hell theology, you don't express it as disagreeing with God, but rather as disagreeing with people who don't understand God as well as you do.
If your god exists, evil exists because it created the possibility for it and allows it.
That was in response to, "A good god would be one embracing humanistic values - reason and empathy, freedom and ..., individual autonomy." This an example of you saying what you believe, which happens to be Christian doctrine, but not why you believe it. I say exactly the same thing in reverse - humanist ethics are superior to Christian ethics. The difference is that I can say how and why. I'm not expecting you to do the same, which is why I've tentatively concluded that you simply uncritically accept that something is good by definition JUST because God said or did it. Obviously, you disagree, but you needn't say so if you can't also say why.
Here's more of what you believe without explaining why you disagree with the consensus of climate scientists. Unsupported opinions aren't useful to others, and writing them isn't useful to you, so why write them?
You say it's interesting, then nothing else such as what you find interesting. Surely you can see that words have no value to others. "1213 finds such-and-such interesting." "Why?" "He didn't say." "Great. I'll file that under news I can't use."
I don't agree with you that mainstream teaching contradicts scripture. Nor am I surprised that you haven't cited the scripture you base that opinion on. Nor is it important to me if they do misunderstand scripture. The Bible is not directly relevant to unbelievers. Its rendering is. What it teaches and promotes is what matters. The Bible also doesn't support the Christian prohibition of abortion, but secularists don't care. The church supports it, and they are the ones who tell most believers what the Bible says and means just as you do.
So then you DO believe in hell as at least a prison if not also a torture chamber, but just for Satan. Question: since killing eliminates some evil according to you, why not kill this greatest evil? God has no problem with capital punishment. He invented it.
The humanist solution would be to rehabilitate Satan. Remove his free will, the source of his evil, and make him good so that he can sit on the left side of God in heaven opposite Jesus. This is the solution that creates the most happiness for the most actors.
I know. Once again, no reasons are given for your opinions. Are you aware that much of Genesis has been falsified in the critical thinking community? We see it to be incorrect, and as always, I can tell you why I believe that, but you include why you don't and believe something else instead. That doesn't seem to matter to you.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
How ghoulish and vile.
Right, i had had 2 children before i was raped so was definitely not a virgin, so i need to be killed? How wonderful.
Sorry to hear that. So, was it your husband who did that, or someone else? I have understood that it is the rapist who would deserve death, in Biblical point of view, if it was adultery.
Please explain why do you think so? And what would be better option, and why?
Ok, so you would not give freedom to people. I don't think that is nice.
Bible tells eternal life is for righteous. They don't want to do evil, therefore I believe there is no evil.
I think it is wrong, but killing in this case would be even more harmful.
I think good is subjective opinion in any case. I think what good says is good, for example because it is reasonable and truthful.
And I believe Bible, because I see it to be correct in many issues.
Really, please give one example?
By what the Bible tells, it is a fire lake where soul and body is destroyed. I believe it means, also Satan will be utterly destoyed there, which is why I would not call it a prison.
I think it is tyrannical to not give freedom and forcing someone to be something else than what he is, is essentially same as killing the person.
No it was someone else.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Are you seriously asking me why forcing rape victims to marry their attacker is vile and ghoulish? Are you a sociopath?
The better option obviously is to punish the rapists and leave the victims alone.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Why not kill this greatest evil ..satan?
I can tell you that .. if G-d had ordained that everybody who opposes "Him" would die, nobody would
have autonomy .. no true independence.
The source of evil is in our having free-will. Remove that, and the whole point of the Creation of man becomes futile.
How can satan be "rehabilitated", when he chooses not to be??
