What Is Man?

[seer]

Nice try, Seer. You are at least moving up a couple of decades.

However, if you look closely at the documents you are referencing, they are interviewing OLDER men (in their 50s and older) thus, the same demographic in the 1978 study.

In 1978 I was 19. I am now 55.

When I was 19, I was far more sexually active with multiple partners. It was "the NORM" at that time (chuckle!).

If you keep reading, you will discover that YOUNGER homosexual males have drastically changed their sexual habits due to AIDS education and changing social norms.

Try again!

NORM

Ok, so their behavior has changed because of AIDS? Not because they thought that having multiple partners was necessarily a bad thing. So if we can cure the disease I guess it would be off to the races again. So I guess you now agree that the Bell study was valid. BTW - do you have a study showing that homosexual males have drastically changed their sexual habits? How many partners do they have now? 200 instead of 500? Or did you just make that up?

[seer]

Their behavior reflected their exclusion from a community biased towards the heterosexual majority and against homosexuals. You need to answer why, if promiscuity is their preferred lifestyle, homosexuals seek the right to marry. You should be pleased that homosexuals wish to conform to traditional community standards.

That is completely false Tass. If "exclusion from a community" is the cause of promiscuity with gay males why didn't the same exclusion cause gay women to be more promiscuous in the same time period? You are not making sense. And what percentage of homosexual males are actually marrying in the states that they can? I have an old friend, Ronny, (gay of course) who thinks that gay marriage is silly - he lives for sexual variety. I wonder how many other gay men feel that way. And BTW Tass, you don't need the blessing of the state or society to remain in a committed relationship - gay women have been in committed relations for years without that blessing.

actual

Oh please, more social cohesion nonsense? Well the Muslim countries have a lot of social cohesion. And we in the West have had great social cohesion even without embracing homosexual behavior. And yes, bashing gays may not be socially acceptable today, but who knows what tomorrow will bring. After all nothing is inherently right or wrong in your world Tass. We just follow the dictates of our biological natures and who knows where that will lead.

[seer]

This seems relevant. He is talking about the Matt Slick/Matt Dillahunty debate. Minds and Jet Engines
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk1d7...CDF2E1&index=7

Silly...

[firstfloor]

Silly...

[seer]

You are still not addressing the original question. How do you know that you will recognize your wife and family members based on scripture?

We are resurrected individually and personally. Jesus was known after His resurrection, and was not someone else. We all stand in judgement for what we did, not for what someone else did. I have no reason to assume that we will not be ourselves - do you have Biblical reasons to assume otherwise?

I did not make the claim. You did. So, you have to prove your claim. You tried to using an article you pulled (probably the first one you Googled) that turned out to be from People Magazine in 1978.

There was this little thing called AIDS (maybe you've heard of it?) that changed the sexual habits of EVERYONE. So, yes; you need to find some bigoted statements from this decade Seer. Quit trying to make me do your work for you. Are you this lazy at work?

The Bell study was referenced in my original link and my new reference from a 1997 study. Which you already saw. And let it be known, you have offered no study that disproves either of my studies.

How do they feel watching your children knowing that you hate who they are?

What kind of world do you live in Norm? Do you have to agree with all the behavior of someone before you can love them? You have to agree with everything they do before you can treat them kindly? Did Jesus teach that I should only love those that agree with me or live like I want them to live?

My source for wisdom is the G-d of the Tanakh, the Talmud, and many philosophers, poets, musicians, writers and loved ones and mentors.

What does the Tanakh and the Talmud say about homosexual behavior Norm?

I don't determine the worth of a human being by what they do or can't do according to some chart of normalcy (as does your book by separating mankind into sinners and saints). I never said that. You only interpreted it that way. Go back and reread it. As much as you claim to believe you think all men are created equal, as soon as they draw breath, they become sheeps and goats in your view.

Just because some men use their moral freedom wrongly does not mean that they are not created equal, and don't have inherent worth. It just doesn't follow.

I don't see it that way. I think that each one of us determines our own worth. Therefore, to the Downs Syndrome person; they define their own worth. It is up to us to accept them as they are (even though our religions have taught us in the past that people who are different are sinful or cursed).

NORM

I accept all men as image bearers of God, so what is your point? And as far as deciding ones own worth that is pretty much meaningless. The men I worked with who had Downs had little or no concept of personal worth.

[seer]

No, the guy in your link was focusing on process but missing the bigger picture. I know Matt Slick, I used to call his radio show back in the late 90s and spend a lot of time on his CARM boards. As a matter of fact I was one of his first posters there. And Matt's overall point is correct. Things like logic and math are concepts, and transcendent. Minds are necessary to conceive them. But human minds are not transcendent, only the mind of God could be the source of transcendent concepts.

[firstfloor]

No, the guy in your link was focusing on process but missing the bigger picture. I know Matt Slick, I used to call his radio show back in the late 90s and spend a lot of time on his CARM boards. As a matter of fact I was one of his first posters there. And Matt's overall point is correct. Things like logic and math are concepts, and transcendent. Minds are necessary to conceive them. But human minds are not transcendent, only the mind of God could be the source of transcendent concepts.

The mind constructs models of the physical reality. These are all types of abstract language including logic and mathematics that are processes operating in the physical brain while mirroring the external reality. The potential for mathematics and logic exist in nature and nature itself is a computational process. It computed us and that proves that we do not need to be here for logic and mathematics (computation) to proceed. That is where it is grounded; in the Universe that was here long before we were. Adding another sub-foundation called God is not required for the system to operate.

[seer]

The mind constructs models of the physical reality. These are all types of abstract language including logic and mathematics that are processes operating in the physical brain while mirroring the external reality. The potential for mathematics and logic exist in nature and nature itself is a computational process. It computed us and that proves that we do not need to be here for logic and mathematics (computation) to proceed. That is where it is grounded; in the Universe that was here long before we were. Adding another sub-foundation called God is not required for the system to operate.

But that s an assertion FF. If "nature itself is a computational process" then the question is why? Why can the universe be explained logically and mathematically? And we wouldn't need to be here for the concepts of logic and mathematics to exist since the mind of God would be. But my point is that Matt's reasoning was not off, God may not be necessary (though He may be), it was not an illogical inference on Matt's part.

[firstfloor]

But that s an assertion FF. If "nature itself is a computational process" then the question is why? Why can the universe be explained logically and mathematically? And we wouldn't need to be here for the concepts of logic and mathematics to exist since the mind of God would be. But my point is that Matt's reasoning was not off, God may not be necessary (though He may be), it was not an illogical inference on Matt's part.

You have to say either that nature just is or God just is. God is an unnecessary extra step in the explanation because we can see nature and we are able to explain more or less everything in natural terms. Eventually we will understand that everything is natural including our own ideas about the divine. We cannot extract explanations from God other than those we invent for Him. We write and edit the holy books and therefore God never says anything that we do not want Him to say.

[seer]

You have to say either that nature just is or God just is. God is an unnecessary extra step in the explanation because we can see nature and we are able to explain more or less everything in natural terms. Eventually we will understand that everything is natural including our own ideas about the divine.

But that is an assertion. Yes, nature acts in a rational manner that is mathematically definable. I have no reason to assume that nature created herself to act in such a logical way. I have no reason to assume that unaided nature ever could. I know that intelligence can organize things logically, I have, again, no reason to assume that non-intelligent forces could organize anything rationally or mathematically.

[firstfloor]

But that is an assertion. Yes, nature acts in a rational manner that is mathematically definable. I have no reason to assume that nature created herself to act in such a logical way. I have no reason to assume that unaided nature ever could. I know that intelligence can organize things logically, I have, again, no reason to assume that non-intelligent forces could organize anything rationally or mathematically.

That nature just is, is justified by the fact that nature certainly exists. We cannot make the same claim for God because we cannot see God. We cannot explain how God would cause existence ex-nihilo because He has nothing on which to act. A natural explanation of the beginning of the Universe does not rule out the possibility of some natural state from which a Universe may emerge. So, of the two possibilities, nature or God, nature is the only one which is rational.

[seer]

That nature just is, is justified by the fact that nature certainly exists. We cannot make the same claim for God because we cannot see God. We cannot explain how God would cause existence ex-nihilo because He has nothing on which to act. A natural explanation of the beginning of the Universe does not rule out the possibility of some natural state from which a Universe may emerge. So, of the two possibilities, nature or God, nature is the only one which is rational.

That is just silly FF, and explains nothing. Nature just is? Well why is it the way it is? Why is it rational? Why are you rational? There is zero evidence that nature could bring about a rational, ordered state of affairs. Or did. There is every reason to suggest that a rational intelligence could bring about a rational, ordered state of affairs. But, like I said in the past FF - I don't deny any man his faith...

[whag]

There is zero evidence that nature could bring about a rational, ordered state of affairs. Or did. There is every reason to suggest that a rational intelligence could bring about a rational, ordered state of affairs

You just set a trap for yourself by suggesting that nature is an ordered state of affairs. Good look fending of counterexamples of dysteleology.

[firstfloor]

That is just silly FF, and explains nothing. Nature just is? Well why is it the way it is? Why is it rational? Why are you rational? There is zero evidence that nature could bring about a rational, ordered state of affairs. Or did. There is every reason to suggest that a rational intelligence could bring about a rational, ordered state of affairs. But, like I said in the past FF - I don't deny any man his faith...

There is no counter example; no example of a nature that is not perfectly regular in its motion. So, in fact, ALL the evidence that is available to us shows that nature is by default rational. The same applies to human beings; zombies do not exist.

Why is it any more satisfying to say that God just is?

[seer]

There is no counter example; no example of a nature that is not perfectly regular in its motion. So, in fact, ALL the evidence that is available to us shows that nature is by default rational. The same applies to human beings; zombies do not exist.

Why is it any more satisfying to say that God just is?

Because God, a rational, intelligent being, created a rational, intelligible cosmos. So we have two choices to try and explain our rational universe. One is the non-rational forces of nature. The other is a Rational Mind. We again, know that intelligence can create precise, ordered conditions. There is zero evidence that unaided nature could do the same. And you can not claim that nature by default is rational, that is begging the question since its rationality is the very thing that needs to be explained. I would say that of course the universe is rational and intelligible - that is what one would expect if created by an Intelligence.