I was going to write a post about the Alabama legislator proposing a law cutting public funding for any books that “promote homosexuality”, which would include nonfiction books that suggest homosexuality is acceptable and fiction novels with gay characters, and public school textbooks couldn’t present homosexuality as a genetic trait and public libraries couldn’t offer books with gay or bisexual characters… but Neil Gaiman has already done the work. Go.
• 
Johnny, you mean the Big Bang theory?
My understanding of current thought is that the current universe was “created” when some*thing* literally exploded. What that *thing* was is unknown, perhaps a super-dense mass that exploded. But I don’t think that Big Bangers think that matter was created out of nothing.
Me? I prefer the Gary Larson theory…God wondered what would happen if he smashed a roasted pork haunch in between his hands….
Phinn wrote: So please, all of you Bush supporters, enlighten me. Tell me why market forces are good for education, healthcare, and social security, but not for our entertainment. I really would like to know.
No, I didn’t.
Phinn
Johnny,
Not really, no. One of the issues at the forefront of early-universe Big Bang cosmology is trying to see if there’s any way we can get at the underlying effects that might have brought about the BB. (It may have been a vacuum fluctuation that in effect expanded out of control.)
One of the major consequences of quantum mechanics, BTW, is that there’s no such thing as “absolute nothingness”, which means there’s certainly no preconceived notion in the manner you describe.
You might want to look into the work of people like Alan Guth or Andrei Linde; the former has a lay-level science book out that should be pretty accessible to those not in the field. (I have to confess that I haven’t gotten around to reading Brian Greene’s stuff, but I suspect he dwells on this topic at length as well.)
Now, if your statement refers to the Big Bang theory in general, then there’s a hëll of a lot of collected evidence in favor of it, the cosmic microwave background being perhaps the strongest individual piece.
Could you perhaps elaborate on what you mean by the above?
(Sorry if this seems lengthy — the cosmic microwave background is the main topic I was working on for my master’s degree, so it’s rather near and dear to my heart.)
TWL
But Bush is a Republican. I think you’re confused.
What part of “he calls himself a conservative” is giving you trouble?
Kingbobb, I think that’s probably where some of the “fact” debate we were having earlier came from. I’m still inclined to quibble with Luigi a bit about the term :-), but certainly the “as factual as we can get unless new evidence surfaces” definition is one that works for me.
TWL
Seems that many scientists follow the preconceived notion that matter suddenly appeared from absolute nothingness without the collected data supporting it.
No, scientists have observed that the universe is expanding, so they developed a theory to explain that the universe began in a massive explosion. The data collected in the form cosmic background radiation support this theory. What triggered the “big bang” is still the subject of debate among cosmologists today.
Den wrote…
Novafan has won a hundred copies of Youngblood #1, signed by Rob Liefeld himself!
Luigi Novi wrote…
Definitely cruel and unusual punishment. I could never stand idly by and allow Novafan to be forced to read even one copy of it, let alone a hundred.
I have to agree, that’s a clear violation of the Geneva conventions.
I have to agree, that’s a clear violation of the Geneva conventions.
Really? How quaint!
TWL
I dunno, with winter coming on pretty chilly now in the midwest, I think 100 copies of Youngblood would provide kindling for a good many fires.
Tim, I agree with you somewhat. But whether we go with Luigi’s scientific facts, or scientific theory, we all seem to be talking about the same thing. I’ve found this thread to contain a higher ratio of good, intelligent posts to mindless drivel than other posts, and was kinda hoping to get off the “can science prove facts” line.
No one liked my Far Side reference? I know they’re much more funny visually. I really miss new Gary Larson…
One of my favorites is “Bummer of a birthmark, Bob…”
Hating gays is not a conservative position.
Oh, but it is. Our beloved conservative president has made hating gays one of the center pieces of his campaign. He wants to write hating gays into the Constitution.
By the same logic, hating Christians is a liberal position since there are some prominent liberals who want to exclude any connection between religion and real life.
Jim in Iowa
Well Jim, conservatives have accused liberals of hating Christians for years now, despite the fact that many liberals consider themselves to be Christians.
I can only speak for myself, but I just take a live and let live attitude. People want to celebrate their religion in public? Fine. But then they have to deal with people who have opposing views bringing their beliefs into the public realm as well.
Some terminology assistance from the National Academy of Sciences (http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/introduction.html):
Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
On another note, it appears to me that Den is using “creationism” to mean as equivalent to young-earth creationism. Den, is this correct? If so, I would ask you to check out http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html for a listing of the many different views that can be called creationist.
When discussing the whole “creation vs evolution” fooferah, it is useful if we don’t begin with the ridiculous assumption that those believing in creation necessarily disregard evolution (and vice versa, for that matter — there are many scientists who accept the scientific fact of evolution and still believe in divine creation).
Jeff
Basically, it REALLY all comes down to this. I have always been told that God has a plan for us all. We are to never know what his plan is, just that we all have our place in it. God is infallable and cannot make a mistake. Using that in mind, who’s to say that the way you interupret the Bible isn’t God’s plan for you and the way I interpret the Bible isn’t God’s plan for me? Wouldn’t that mean you were questioning God? Doesn’t that technically make you more of a heathen?
Larry,
Obviously we will have to agree to disagree on the way to interpret Romans 1. I am quite familiar with Greek and know the lexical tools to look these things up, so I am not just basing my view on what a pastor told me. You have done the same and reached a different conclusion. So I will spare everyone else who doesn’t care about the Greek translation of a 2,000 year old text. 😉
In regards to your quote I noted above, I cannot accept your logic. I not only believe God cannot make a mistake, I also think he is logical and consistent. It is possible I am wrong and have misunderstood God(or that you have), but it is logically absurd (at least to me)to think that BOTH of us could be right at the same time about this issue. Not when something is so clearly stated in the Bible. On other matters I think what you say can be true, but when the Bible speaks clearly (and I think it has), then there is a right and a wrong answer. (Of course, it is possible we both are wrong, but if God took the trouble to actually record a message for us, it is logical that he would try to make it understandable. Our two views cover the two most logical options to this matter, and our views cannot both be true at the same time. So I suspect one of us is right and the other is not.)
Jim in Iowa
2) Actually, he doesn’t want to write hating gays into the Constitution. He wants to write the definition of marriage as it existed when he took office into the Constitution. That’s not the same thing. (We already had this thread once, didn’t we?)
And why is this such a burning issue? Because he and his key supporters hate gays!
It is this type of logic that frustrates me. You are accusing a group (including myself) of a motive without any basis.
I believe homosexual sexual acts are harmful to the person, spiritualy, emotionally, and mentally. I believe having a loving father AND a mother is the best environment to raise a healthy child, so I therefore oppose gay marriage. You may disagree with my positions. You may even say it is not fair to a gay person. But you cannot say I “hate” a gay person.
If you really believe saying something is wrong means you hate a person, than many of you on this site hate Christians, creationists, and Republicans. Just because you disagree does not have to mean that you hate. You can’t have it both ways.
Jim in Iowa
Jim, I accused you of nothing. I only stated the obvious about Bush and his advisors. Are you one of his advisors?
Jeff, please see my comment above about the age of the earth.
…and hence more proof from Jim that there is NO connection between religion and intelligent life…
Well Jim, conservatives have accused liberals of hating Christians for years now, despite the fact that many liberals consider themselves to be Christians.
Den, I will have to use the “sarcasm” warning next time. My point was that the original was absurd.
Jim in Iowa
Phinn wrote: So please, all of you Bush supporters, enlighten me. Tell me why market forces are good for education, healthcare, and social security, but not for our entertainment. I really would like to know.
No, I didn’t.
Phinn
Sorry about that, it was “Den.” I apologize for the wrong attribution.
Jim in Iowa
That’s where the textbook issue came up. You still want to claim I’m being unfair to people, that’s your call, but don’t expect much agreement on this end.
Tim, thanks for the clarification. I see why you took it that way now. Because the original post mentioned novels as well, I was looking at it from a broader perspective than just textbooks.
Jim in Iowa
Jim, I accused you of nothing. I only stated the obvious about Bush and his advisors. Are you one of his advisors?
When you said “Because he and his key supporters hate gays!”, I did not read that as “advisors” but as those, like me, who voted for him. But I would still ask my question: in what way do they hate gays? Is it simply because they oppose gay marriage? Or do you think there is an actual, emotional hatred for anyone who is gay?
Jim in Iowa
I think it is definitely an actual hatred of gays, yes.
I think it is definitely an actual hatred of gays, yes.
Why? I am curious as to what led you to this conclusion.
Jim in Iowa
I think it is definitely an actual hatred of gays, yes.
Well, then you would be wrong.
Did you see how much Cheney squirmed when his daughter was brought up in the VP debate? The last thing he wants is to remind the power brokers in his party that he has a gay daughter.
And why pick on homosexuality? Why not murder? Waging war? Lying? Stealing?
Maybe I missed it, where are the groups that are trying to tell everyone that murder, waging war, lying, and stealing are acceptable?
I don’t think it is so much picking on homosexuality, but defending societal morals.
Jim in Iowa and Larry have opened up an interesting discussion, concerning different, and in some cases opposing interpretations of the same biblical passage.
If I understand the christian *take* on scripture, it’s that God *inspired* certain good and holy men to write out His words, and has acted throughout the ages to preserve the meaning of His word so that it is not lost. So scripture really is, despite the various translations, the true Word of God.
And while understanding that this premise is one of faith, I think it fails me. Which may be my issue, but it compels me to seek an answer. If God, working through the Holy Spirit, can preserve the true meaning of His words, why does he stop there? Why doesn’t he, in the same fashion, go the next step and ensure that everyone and all comprehend his Word in the same way?
See, if man really does have free will (which kinda contradicts the God’s plan for everyone line of thinking), then we could all read the Bible, get the same message, and use our free will to decide how we’re going to act having that knowledge. But is interpreting scripture an act of free will? I don’t see how it can be.
Did you see how much Cheney squirmed when his daughter was brought up in the VP debate? The last thing he wants is to remind the power brokers in his party that he has a gay daughter.
Or perhaps he is just a truly loving and protective father who did not want to see his daughter dragged into this debate.
Jim in Iowa
See, if man really does have free will (which kinda contradicts the God’s plan for everyone line of thinking), then we could all read the Bible, get the same message, and use our free will to decide how we’re going to act having that knowledge. But is interpreting scripture an act of free will? I don’t see how it can be.
Whole books have been written on this question!
Short answer: It is logical to me that part of free will includes denying the message in the first place.
A key aspect of Christianity is “faith.” A good synoymn is “trust.” Faith does not mean you jump off a building and just hope real hard you will not fall. But if you are doing a ropes course, and there is a group of people standing there behind you, faith/trust is letting go and falling back and trusting they will catch you.
If God were to in essence “force” us to understand his word, then it would remove one of our basic freedoms, which is to think for ourselves. Faith/Trust in God includes a trust in his word, the Bible.
Jim in Iowa
The question of free will is far from solved, and many of the arguments have nothing to do with religion.
Some of the very arguments used in this thread indicate that free will does not exist, or at the very least is limited. Genetics puts limitations on free will, as do many other attempts to explain human behaviour scientifically.
In psychology, most fields seem to indicate that free will does not exist. This is mainly because science is oriented towards a “cause-and-effect” methodology, and free will frankly doesn’t fit well with science. One of the founding fathers of behaviourism, and one of the giants in the field of psychology, B. F. Skinner, once argued that “free will” is an outdated concept that no longer serves a useful purpose, and that as a species we must move past the concept.
It ain’t an open-and-shut case, folks.
We cannot – as a society – proclaim that free will does not exist. To do so would undermine every law based on personal responsibility we have.
“You killed her!”
“No, I didn’t want to, but it was predetermined that I do so! You can’t hold me responsible for something that I was forced to do by psychology!”
Good points, Jim in Iowa.
“Short answer: It is logical to me that part of free will includes denying the message in the first place. “
And this I guess is the problem. Where do we get to exercise our free will? Is it in failing to understand the message? Or, in understanding the message, but then failing to follow it?
Here’s where my economic background starts to get in my way. Economic models are all based on information: who has it, how much do they have, is it correct, do they understand it correctly, etc. Simple economic models use the term “perfect information” to represent an actor that knows everything that they need to in order to make the *best* choice, based on their needs.
I know this doesn’t carry through to faith based decisions (that’s why it’s only a model) but the idea that God would allow us to proceed without giving us an approximation of perfect information seems to me to be unfair. Kinda like God is saying “here’s this book with my Word in it. Follow it. Oh, uh, and it’s kinda in code, so good luck with that. No pressure, just your eternal soul at stake. Off you go, don’t eat the fruit…”
Maybe I’m just looking for a Babblefish.
Mark L…
We cannot – as a society – proclaim that free will does not exist.
Your point is taken, and I don’t necessarily disagree, but your statement doesn’t actually address the issue of whether or not free will exists – it just says we shouldn’t think about it.
The entire topic is rather unsettling, and I’d like to go into Skinner’s intent when he made the statments I mentioned earlier, but that particular textbook is on loan to a friend and I wouldn’t want to misrepresent him.
In broad terms, he was saying that clinging to the concept of free will is preventing us from fully understanding the principles which influence behaviour, and that understanding these principles would allow us to make vast improvements to society.
(Hey, given how well [Jenna Jameson]’s done with that title, should PAD consider titling his next book “How to Make Love Like a Writer”?)
What? Alone in a room using nothing but your hands and imagination to keep you going? 😉
No one liked my Far Side reference? I know they’re much more funny visually. I really miss new Gary Larson…
I did. So I’d imagine would Jim Lynch who replied to my post with: “Hey, these are EASY!” — God’s thoughts upon making the snake, according to G. Larson
The collected 2 volume FAR SIDE omnibus is so going on my Christmas list.
One of my favorites is “Bummer of a birthmark, Bob…”
I think that’s one of everyone’s favorites.
Jim in Iowa,
It is this type of logic that frustrates me. You are accusing a group (including myself) of a motive without any basis.
I believe homosexual sexual acts are harmful to the person, spiritualy, emotionally, and mentally.
You’ve also said that you believe any sexual act outside of marriage is harmful and sinful, and I assume therefore that you also think adultery is harmful to the environment of raising a healthy child. (That latter is an assumption, so feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.)
Therefore, why are you not pushing just as hard for a constitutional amendment banning adultery? There are a lot more adulterous straight people out there than there are gay people trying to get married, and there are many more documented cases of marriages ending due to adultery than of marriages ending due to a gay couple down the street getting hitched.
I wouldn’t presume to call it hatred (not on your part, anyway — some politicians have made public statements which I think do show flat-out hatred), but there’s certainly something consciously discriminatory in your willingness to elevate homosexuality as A Bigger Problem than adultery despite evidence suggesting the latter’s a greater threat to your stated goals.
(I’d also like to point out that in previous threads you’ve been more than willing to bash others, myself included, for “hating” Christians or religion in general. Shouldn’t the same standards apply?)
TWL
I did. So I’d imagine would Jim Lynch who replied to my post with: “Hey, these are EASY!” — God’s thoughts upon making the snake, according to G. Larson
That’d be me (though it’s Tim, not Jim) — and yes, I enjoyed it.
The 2-volume Far Side collection, by the way, is absolutely wonderful. My only regret is that it doesn’t have an index, but I imagine a comprehensive index would require a third volume.
TWL
I know this doesn’t carry through to faith based decisions (that’s why it’s only a model) but the idea that God would allow us to proceed without giving us an approximation of perfect information seems to me to be unfair. Kinda like God is saying “here’s this book with my Word in it. Follow it. Oh, uh, and it’s kinda in code, so good luck with that. No pressure, just your eternal soul at stake. Off you go, don’t eat the fruit…”
Actually, I think you make a fair point. In Romans 1, Paul says that nature itself gives testimony to God’s character and nature, so even if someone never has a copy of the Bible, they have information (and, one could argue, everyone who has ever lived has been given the same, basic level of information).
Furthermore, I believe salvation is based on a relationship with God, not just following a book (a list of rules). Ultimately the problem was not that Adam & Eve ate the fruit, but that they broke their relationship with God, they chose to not trust him. That does not mean we are therefore free to do whatever we want. It means our lives our lived based on a love for another.
Jim in Iowa
And why pick on homosexuality? Why not murder? Waging war? Lying? Stealing?
Maybe I missed it, where are the groups that are trying to tell everyone that murder, waging war, lying, and stealing are acceptable?
Considering the groups that have been adamantly supporting the Iraq War, the shoddy-if-not-outright-untruthful reasons we began it, and the shameful treatment of prisoners, yes, I’d say you may have missed it.
I don’t think it is so much picking on homosexuality, but defending societal morals.
Morals or mores I wonder sometimes . . .
By the same logic, hating Christians is a liberal position since there are some prominent liberals who want to exclude any connection between religion and real life.
Well, to be honest, I have to wonder whether a great number of religious conservatives are out of touch with real life.
“Maybe I missed it, where are the groups that are trying to tell everyone that murder, waging war, lying, and stealing are acceptable?”
There is one. The Bush Administration.
Murder – 100,000 Iraqi citizens
Waging war – Iraq, and likely Iran
Lying – the reasons for said war(s)
Stealing – the missing billions (cash & materials)that went to Halliburton, the missing Iraqi oil
I don’t see any of this getting even half the attention that gays are getting.
You’ve also said that you believe any sexual act outside of marriage is harmful and sinful, and I assume therefore that you also think adultery is harmful to the environment of raising a healthy child. (That latter is an assumption, so feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.)
Yes, I would say adultery and premarital sex are both wrong and harmful, etc. (There is strong research that suggests that a lack of a father is actually the leading reason for poverty in a given group. So kids born outside of “marriage” are far more likely to be poor than from any other factor studied.)
Therefore, why are you not pushing just as hard for a constitutional amendment banning adultery? There are a lot more adulterous straight people out there than there are gay people trying to get married, and there are many more documented cases of marriages ending due to adultery than of marriages ending due to a gay couple down the street getting hitched.
For your example to be true, I should be pushing for a ban on all homosexual acts. That would be a true equivalent. I am not calling for that. I am asking that the definition and fundamental understanding of marriage as involving a male and a female not be changed.
You do not have a group trying to actively push for adultery to be legitimate like you do with gay marriage. That also is the reason for this push. The ammendment is a REACTION to something that was not even an available option in the over 200 years of American history.
I agree that in regards to a given couple’s marriage, adultery is more of a threat. But I have never suggested gay marriage will pull apart existing marriages in this way. What I have suggested is that gay marriage will cause some harm to children raised in such an environment, and that the value of marriage will be lowered in general. If the value is lowered, you will have even more kids being raised by a single parent (see point above).
Fundamentally, gay marriage is a huge CHANGE in how we have understood marriage in virutally any of the variations you can find. It has almost always involved a man and a woman.
Jim in Iowa
Jim in Iowa, well said. This
“Furthermore, I believe salvation is based on a relationship with God, not just following a book (a list of rules). Ultimately the problem was not that Adam & Eve ate the fruit, but that they broke their relationship with God, they chose to not trust him. That does not mean we are therefore free to do whatever we want. It means our lives our lived based on a love for another.”
may be the best, most basic breakdown of christian faith I’ve seen. I wish more remembered this key part, and spent less time working on getting into wars over the details.
I’ve got the Prehistory of the Farside. Good stuff if you don’t have it. Amazon has them for under $12.
Hardly a year goes by that I don’t get a “Midvale School for the Gifted” card from some relative. Wonder if they’re trying to tell me something?
Or perhaps he is just a truly loving and protective father who did not want to see his daughter dragged into this debate.
And what was so horrible that was said about her in the debate? That she was a human being who deserved the same rights as everyone else. Gasp!
Cheney wasn’t upset that his daughter was brought into the debate. He was upset because he didn’t want certain people to be reminded that she exists.
There is one. The Bush Administration.
Well, I will admit this unclever answer was expected, but it totally misses the point. How many pride parades, rallys, etc. is going on to promote murder, war, lying, and stealing?
How many pride parades, rallys, etc. is going on to promote murder, war, lying, and stealing?
How about the Republican National Convention? 🙂
Well, that covers the “war” (which is not considered a sin), so I guess the DNC covered lying, stealing, and murder?
No, I’d say that with Haliburton and the other contractors screwing up in Iraq, the RNC had lying, stealing murder well-represented.
Political hatemongering aside, you can’t come up with a legitimate group that is marching out and saying that lying, stealing, and murder is an acceptable lifestyle. And keep in mind, whoever asked the original question made the equivication with these and homosexuality.
The conservative movement against homosexuality is just a reaction, they did not make the first move.
Me:
Therefore, why are you not pushing just as hard for a constitutional amendment banning adultery? There are a lot more adulterous straight people out there than there are gay people trying to get married, and there are many more documented cases of marriages ending due to adultery than of marriages ending due to a gay couple down the street getting hitched.
Jim:
For your example to be true, I should be pushing for a ban on all homosexual acts.
Um … no, no you shouldn’t. “All homosexuality” is not what you’re calling the threat to marriage — homosexual marriage is the part that you’re feeling threatens stable homes, yes?
You do not have a group trying to actively push for adultery to be legitimate like you do with gay marriage.
Poppycock. “Desperate Housewives” is the number one show in the country right now. The 1990s saw the titular heads of both the Democratic AND Republican parties having flings with interns.
Sure, there’s no official lobbying group calling itself Wedding Vow Veterans for Adultery, but one could easily, *easily* make the case that there’s a greater societal pressure to legitimize adultery than to legitimize gay marriage.
You’re still not answering my basic question, Jim. Adultery has directly threatened more marriages than any gay marriage ever has. Adultery has directly changed more children’s lives than any gay marriage ever has.
So why is gay marriage the big threat?
I agree that in regards to a given couple’s marriage, adultery is more of a threat. But I have never suggested gay marriage will pull apart existing marriages in this way.
Unfortunately, in some ways that makes it worse — you’re arguing that there is a threat to an abstraction, and willing to legislate discrimination against actual people to ensure that a particular abstract concept is held intact.
I personally find that very, very worrying.
Fundamentally, gay marriage is a huge CHANGE in how we have understood marriage in virutally any of the variations you can find. It has almost always involved a man and a woman.
True … but if you’ll forgive me for asking, so what? Copernicus’s and Galileo’s observations caused a huge change in how we understood the nature of the universe: it had always involved the Earth at the center of the universe.
Change happens. Simply saying “but it’s a CHANGE!” is a value-neutral term, not an innate cause for concern.
TWL
Den says:
“Cheney wasn’t upset that his daughter was brought into the debate. He was upset because he didn’t want certain people to be reminded that she exists.”
Riiiiiiiight. That’s why she had a prominate role in his campaign. ‘Cause, you know, he wanted her hidden.
“Did you see how much Cheney squirmed when his daughter was brought up in the VP debate? The last thing he wants is to remind the power brokers in his party that he has a gay daughter.”
Well, that’s an interesting interpretation. Most of the Kerry apologists claimed that Cheney had no bad reaction to his daughter being brought into the discussion, therefore his outrage over Kerry was fabricated. You’re claiming that he WAS upset the first time, making Kerry’s subsequent use of her as a debate point undeniably a cheap shot. Interesting.
Me, I’m willing to give the 2 Johns some benefit of the doubt, though, as others have found out when dragging PAD’s family into these discussions, trying to score points with another man’s loved ones is usually a first class way to look like a no class prìçk. But to each his own.
Obviously you want to believe that conservatives hate gays and no amount of arguing will be able to convince you otherwise. A bad argument is like pseudoscience: it can’t be disproven. While some see that as a strength, better minds usually see it as a weakness.