And another thing I find disconcerting is how many people will answer the question in the OP with a blatant answer suggesting that God disapproves and Bible says it's wrong.

So where's the honesty here? If Christian women obeyed the rule, of their own beliefs, then why are so many women in the U.S. using birth control?

And if sex between single, uncommitted people required such an adamant moral standard, then why was only adultery addressed in the big ten of God's commandments?

The question in the Opening Post:



Consider evolution and what it must have been like to be at the bottom of the food chain. There we were, with a developing cortex and ever increasing self-awareness. It must have been a scary place to be.

We still depended on our survival instincts and among them was the need for social connectivity as in safety in numbers or call it the herd instinct.Women and children and younger men most likely followed a dominant leader, or a tribal elder, instinctually.

Our brains evolved, as did our through processes. We, cognitively, recognized that there was security in the social order, in other words we no longer maintained social structure, strictly speaking, out of instinct.

But, even today we still have the instinct to be social creatures, and that’s why most people find it necessary to please others, to have need to be accepted, and to see their group as the best and so on.

So it makes sense that some of the first religions evolved in dominantly pantheistic ways. Perhaps, in some way we came to understand our need for social connection as extending to everything in nature that supported our existence. That truly has mystical qualities as everything in the pantheistic physical world is thought to be a living thing that is a part of the whole.

The point from here is that our instincts are still intact however, we have learned to ignore, misinterpret, or simply override them in ways that support our beliefs of self-determinism, mysticism or some combination of both.

SO, the answer to the question could be that people who hold mysticism in high regard are simply misinterpreting key features of our survival instinct.

The problem is, at this stage in the development of our evolutionary psychology, we have also developed many other means of survival skills like the use of heuristics, and making fundamental attribution errors and so many other strange cognitive survival qualities that will continue to prevent most believers from ever changing their fundamentally held beliefs.

The most we can do is separate governance from mystic belief systems and possibly plant seeds to strengthen cognitive processes along the way.

So carry on with your planting, just remember there must two sides to a debate/discussion and ethical communication should provide all parties with an opportunity to learn something.

Does anyone else think that many of our beliefs – whether mystical or scientific – are an extension of or in some way related to our human survival instincts?

Since this is a religion chat forum I would like to confess:
I did not read every single post in this thread.
I DID however, scan through and I am amazed at the ability of so many posters to care so little about what they claim to believe.

Now I'm not suggesting that every one who posted is disingenuous but I did have a problem trying to find anyone who actually considered the question posed in the OP by even attempting to reflect on Biblical passages in terms of the place times in which they were written.

It is impossible to even begin translating scriptures of antiquity into meaningful moral passages for todays world without first understanding what the heck they meant to the people living at the time of their writing.

Of course that takes a lot of work and even if you do not want to do a life time of work for yourself, you could at the very least refer to several dozen authorities in the field of the theology of interest to you.

But I see that most people are content with creating their religion of one, which may give new meaning to the term MONO-theism.

So, to the OP - WHAT THE HECK - it's a new year and what better time than to begin creating your own religion of one.

In your religion just assume that having consensual sex with any partner is perfectly fine with the exception of, perhaps, a moral infraction if having sex with another is breaking a previous commitment to one. But it's just a suggestion, it's your religion, be happy with it, that way you can uphold it or adjust it to suit your changing attitude.

HanaHasna wrote:



This is a good demonstration of 'cultural' differences that actually affect our health. In the United States, the mental illness schizophrenia is currently treated with a variety of medications and many of them can have difficult side effects. But here, in the U.S. we don't want to deal with friends, co-workers, or family members who have these kind of issues. We want to give them a pill and make that person better.

But in some countries, perhaps where HanaHasna lives, people with schizophrenia may only be treated with medicine for a very short time to get the disorder under control. Other than that, the whole community helps that person to work through the issues. That person may never be the same person they were before, but believe it or not, that person is usually still a valued and productive member of the community.

That doesn't usually happen here, because we are an individualist culture. It sounds like HanaHasna is from a collectivist culture because they are 'mindful' of their own actions and the effect they may have on others. There's more security for people who become ill in collectivist culture because the community is more naturally patient and understanding.

In other words, how we feel about ourselves and our ability to overcome an illness may have a great deal to do with the culture we were raised in.

HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE.


Massagetrade I have one thing to say to you - you never change and that's good because the way you look at things can often lead others to reconsider, well at least it worked for me. But you’re not getting through to cuddlebunny. Could it be the you have not made a concession to her point of view?

Cuddlebunny you made a very good point; our beliefs can, in fact, have a great effect on our health. We have known this for a long time. We can control our heart rate, blood pressure (flow), and we know that the placebo effect is real and we know that by using our mind we can control the mechanisms (psychological, central nervous system & hormones) that can control our pain and fear. There has even been a link established between our state of mind and our T-cells.

It hasn't been too long since the United States adopted an integrated approach to understanding health and illness through a more holistic view, referred to as the biopsychosocial model of medicine.

Advancements in technology have provided some insight into how the body and mind interact, and greater acceptance of the role of cultural medicine and social adaptations have led to some interesting studies and our knowledge continues to advance.

Unfortunately, there are simply some things we can't do for ourselves. The problem is knowing when we (as individuals) have to seek help from outside sources and what sources they should be. And it'��s even more difficult when parents must make decisions for children.

So it’s really important that we insist that our medical professionals are capable of offering every kind of alternative for our decision-making process.

Currently those professionals, like our political decision makers, are held hostage to a cycle of greed. The pharmaceutical companies and other major corporate players in the medical field lord over our doctors and they often push only for one way - the chemical way.

So we have to find our own information and it is MOST important that we have some understanding of biology, psychology, and the scientific method which includes correlation and causation (which massagetrade has brought up).

If you, or a loved is in urgent need of medical treatment, there may only be one opportunity, and you'll want to have some strong basis of choosing what course of action to follow. It’s not likely that you will choose to do nothing but pray or meditate, not when time is of the essence and you only have one shot at it. It's one thing to say you 'believe' in your ability to heal yourself, and another to try and find that you're failing.

This is a great forum to learn in, because there is so much diversity here and many of us here, have done and continue to do research to better our understanding. It’s about self-development and growth and not about simply saying someone is WRONG. And I don't recall massagetrade ever doing that. But he is honest, and forthright and like all of us, he's not always right.

So cuddlebunny, consider it a challenge to show him and others that your information is stronger than theirs. If nothing else, it forces us all to stay legitimate and keep looking things up for ourselves.

edited for punctuation errors

How can we even begin to explore the topic without a definition of love. And what is the purpose of the addition of the word 'true' in front of the word love?




Experiencing, Acceptance of and Interest in what?

Humans are always in constant motions or they are dead and if we are aware, we are experiencing. It doesn't require interest to feel cold or pain so why is it required for love?

How is the love of a lover different from the love of a friend, a family member, chocolate, a pet?

There is no way to have a sensible discussion without first setting up the questions or premises and then defining the terms we should be using.

Kenny132, so what is your opinion after all?

Would any one like to set up questions and define terms?

(edited for spelling correction)

If ’nothing’ is defined as the absence of physical matter
And the concept that defines ‘nothing’ is a thing
Then thought, which conceived the definition of ‘nothing’, consists of physical matter

Does that mean that ‘nothing’ must also be defined as the absence of physical matter and thought?

That could be a problem for those who believe in an intelligent creative force.

Hi ArtGurl, nice to see you here again.

If you believe that your physical existence is some kind of extension of some non-physical part of your being, then you may have chosen the time and place and status of your birth. And you have chosen to view the physical reality, of which you are a part, based on many factors from genetics, to intelligence and family and peer influence. You are not the sole creator of YOU but you most definitely have the ability to determine your own value system and your behavior in response to activity around you.

Something else that might help you out – humans need to be validated. We all need to know that we ARE a part of this reality and we ARE visible and unique and deserving of universal human rights. When we reach out into the virtual space of the internet, we are asking to be validated by those we have not created. We do this by getting information from others that we don’t know or haven't conceived of but can proved outside our own knowledge. That’s how we know ‘they’ exist outside of our own creative ability.

Of course you can misapply various attributes and characteristics to individuals and in that way you really are using your creative talents.

Try looking at and getting to know individuals without any preconceived notions and allow that person to develop to you all on their own. Then you will begin to know the vast but limited scope of your ability to create.

So would it be better for such a child to be raised with a wet nurse and/or a mammy? Would it be better for such a child to be considered a bas tard who should assume the low ranking class that reflects the sins of it's egg & sperm doner?

That seems to be what you would prefer rather than to give that child a loving home and family and an equal chance for education and success, at least when it comes to the care of that child by a loving same-sex couple. A couple for whom you would deny access to laws and contracts, not even worthy of being granted all the rights and responsibilities of a married couple - themselves second class citizens in your eyes. Any child to be given into their care is simply an unfortunate little bas tard.

Honestly, how close is that to what you really think and feel?

As stated in my previous post on page 7 of this thread: You and others have already declared that aging heterosexuals AND those unwilling to have children AND those situations in which one or the other partner is sterile DOES NOT PRECLUDE POTENTIAL and therefore does not render illegal their ability to marry.

So we just have to follow that exact same reasoning – Two same sex couples may not be able to produce a child TOGETHER but that does not preclude the potential… JUST AS aging heterosexuals, those unwilling to have children and in situations where one or the other partner is sterile.

If marriage is allowed based on potential to have and raise children together then based on the logic for WHEN potential exists, then same-sex couples have as much right to marriage as heterosexual couples.

The original argument set out for ‘potential’ to have and raise children - fails and nothing new has been offered to debate. This is the point at which you always give up and start pushing unrelated issues into the discussion. But you fall into the same failed argument time after time, year after year and never have any better reasoning.

Msharmony -

That quote is something we’ve heard time and again in these discussions. Let me reference TeddyRose



You see, it’s a matter of justice. We have human rights and we have rights conferred by our citizenship. In the USA there are many laws that render the love of same-sex couples invalid suggesting they lack equality with their heterosexual counterparts.

For justice to prevail, the legal contract of marriage must be offered to same-sex couples. Only then will the laws that are granted to heterosexuals and denied to homosexuals be equal to all parties.

So I contend that marrying who you love IS A RIGHT. And hopefully soon, federal law (DOMA) will be realigned to uphold the idea of marriage as a right.

OH TOGETHER – but here’s the problem with that dear, we are talking about POTENTIAL. You and others have already declared that aging heterosexuals AND those unwilling to have children AND those situations in which one or the other partner is sterile DOES NOT PRECLUDE POTENTIAL and therefore does not render illegal their ability to marry.

So we just have to follow that exact same reasoning – Two same sex couples may not be able to produce a child TOGETHER but that does not preclude the POTENTIAL of either one of the partners to provide ½ of the potential that any other heterosexual person can provide.

So your argument fails.






I can only guess what the is being inferred in the above. Are you talking about studies discussing role models or studies discussing marriage or studies discussing unmarried live-in parents ….. what is your line of reasoning here?



Same sex couple HAVE to love each other before expanding their family because pregnancy accidents are ‘practically’ unheard of.



I happen to know two girls raised by their fathers and a multitude of boys raised by their mothers – they are as well adjusted as anyone else.



And what do these number of studies attribute their findings to? Is it just that a single parent head of house faces a lot more challenges raising children alone? And EXACTLY what are these studies saying about the psychological issues of adults who were raised by a single parent regardless of the gender of parent & child?



Just as everything else stated, that statement is overly generalized and has no meaning. Specifics might include quotes or paraphrased ideas from the various sources that indicated a consensus between the authors or scientists.




That’s what was stated before all the BLA BLA BLA BLA - stating it again at the end does not make it any more valid.

1. Only a male and female can produce children – not the full story.
Homosexuals are no less capable of producing eggs or sperm than heterosexuals. It all still works the same way typically, one egg and one sperm. The egg and sperm do not have to come from a man and woman who are married and a child does not have to be the product of simultaneous male/female copulation.

THEREFORE - Just because two same gendered individuals decide to marry does not delegitimize their potential to produce viable offspring. So the argument that presumes to place the potential of one male/female over any other male/female to produce offspring is illogical.

2. Having a male and female dominated home produces the best outcome for children. The available studies do not indicate that two parent, same-sex households have any worse results than two parent heterosexual households.

THEREFORE – the sexual orientation of any given couple does not preclude their potential for producing their own children, or taking in (adopting) and raising children to become healthy well-adjusted, productive and civil minded citizens.

Next argument: Children need both a male and a female role model.
To respond we must first debate what is meant by the terms ‘male role model’ and ‘female role model’.

When providing that information please explain the importance of role differences and why they can only be assimilated by children who are raised in a two parent heterosexual household.

OK – so, without entertaining off topic and unrelated discussions, such as incest, are there any other reasons not to accept and even endorse the value of same-sex marriage?

Will Durant

“Sixty years ago I knew everything; now I know nothing; education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance.”

“We have here the fundamental problem of ethics, the crux of the theory of moral conduct. What is justice? -shall we seek righteousness, or shall we seek power? -is it better to be good, or to be strong?”

“And last are the few whose delight is in meditation and understanding; who yearn not for goods, nor for victory, but for knowledge; who leave both market and battlefield to lose themselves in the quiet clarity of secluded thought; whose will is a light rather than a fire, whose haven is not power but truth: these are the men of wisdom, who stand aside unused by the world.”
― Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy

It's alright. I expect that you are much like the rest of us, no real paper that denotes your wealth as it is traded for the necessities of life, even before the powerful have doled it out to you.

The company store is not myth, it is real, and we all consume there.

The issues described in the OP did not begin with Reagan (1980s), they began much earlier. Perhaps it began with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 – or more likely it began with the earliest economic philosophies by people like John Locke and Adam Smith which the U.S.A. purportedly adopted and idealized.

More precisely however, it is about how such philosophies became so twisted that what holds the greatest value is not that which are the commons – the necessary, abstract, hard to pin down common elements for sustainable existence. So twisted the ideologies of value have become that ‘the bottom line’ falls well above the mark of human life or even life at all.

That which holds the greatest value today, in our modern societies, is paper or pieces of metal or plastic through which one’s wealth is conferred. The value of wealth is that it buys either the necessities of life or it buys power to control the commons from which the necessities for sustainable existence were once freely accessed and shared by all life and preserved for the common good of all life.

When individual lives are worth less than a piece of paper, when the necessities of life demand that we conform to the ethics that put paper above life, and then we put the weapons of violence in the hands of the masses – what else is to be expected, but violence?

Msharmony

Absolutely, we uphold the Constitution by creating legislation (law). In order to do that well, one must consider more than just the single line item of one amendment.

Motown

It was the intent of the original Federal government to remain small by giving regulatory control to the State’s care. The ‘small’ federal government did not have, could it afford , and did not want to have control of a single military – hense State Militia’s, trained and governed by the State.

The State could not afford to arm and maintain a paid militia, so every ‘man’ (who could afford a musket) was required to have their own. With all that information the 2nd amendment make more sense, doesn’t it.

However, as time went on it became clear that a controlling agent was necessary in order to mount combined militia efforts, especially when a certain faction of the population decided they didn’t like the popular vote and took arms against the federal government. And so the federal government realized that it had to get involved.

That makes sense as well – we can’t have citizens bearing arms against our governments (state or federal) just because a certain faction is against … abortion… gay marriage…fracking… .

We currently have many pathways to change what we don’t like and they require a huge presence of the population in order to sway opinion and change laws.

Privately owned guns, at this point, can and should be regulated. That is not to say that they cannot be had, but in order to have ‘allowable’ weapons should require proof of responsibility (well regulated).

Motown:


I agree, the bill that Senator Feinstein intends is to stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devices.

How could that possibly be conceived as treason?


JustDukky:


Yep.
And by the way, what makes anyone think that privately owned hand guns and rifles of American citizens would be a match for the largest, most technically advanced military complex in the world?


Metalwing:


It wouldn’t take much for any insurrection in the private sector to be declared terrorist acts – how foolish does one have to be to think that such an ‘insurrection’ would stand a chance against the (American) military turned against them. ????

Metalwing:

What history are you relating to: Pre-Federalist paper or Federalist documents themselves? What purpose did the ‘State’s privately armed Militias’ serve in the Whiskey Rebellion?

Why was it important for the ‘Men’ to have their own arms and to be trained in a state militia?

JustDukky:

You are wrong, a variety of handguns and rifles, which include antiques and those that are non-functional, (even at 300 million) with a limited private supply of bullets, would NEVER be called into a single minded force. If that were the case, then this constitution “that any nation would give its eyeteeth for” would not be in any danger as we have many pathways to change or prevent legislation in a peaceful manner.

Any attempt to become violent would be crushed by our professionally trained military.

Rebellioussoul:

What law are you referring to?

And the second amendment is vague because the terms and conditions under which it was enacted are different today. That means we must relate to that amendment differently but in order to do that we have to apply the current terms and conditions that have changed since the inception of the amendment.

Metalwing:

Well – Motowndowntow and I have a similar question: And how many types of guns were there in the late 1780’s

Metalwing:

The response made no sense at all so please read the quote we were questioning:

Clarification please by answering: And how many types of guns were there in the late 1780’s and how many rounds could be fired in say, 5 minuets? AND since each individual was required to have their own firearm for the State militia – do you suppose people could afford to have TWO ‘muskets’, one for shooting food and one to set aside “just in case” they were called to serve the State’s interest?


Per Toodygirl5

The first sentence of this petition is blatant misinformation and the total disregard for facts continues in the next paragraph.



I think I have the answer to all these delusional concepts -- it must be what happens when consuming too many GMO products!!!

Metalwing

Not so amazing really, just a misconception that can be corrected without affront to a person’s intelligence. What is really amazing is how many people buy totally distorted views of history only to become easily led by propaganda.

Jesus spoke of divorce with the Pharisees, for more information about this engagement check out:
Matthew 19:1-15

Marriage is for life:

According to bible, there is little doubt that marriage was meant to last until death. (Matthew 19:6 – Genesis 2:24)

One of the commandments that Moses brought down from Mt. Sinai was "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery". Obviously this commandment was a reinforcement measure to assure that people who got married stayed married and faithful.



So serious an offense is adultery that it was worthy of having one of the 10 commandments address it and that being the case any outward sign of it meant death.

How DIVORCE come into the picture?

It seems the concept of divorce came through Moses NOT THROUGH GOD. It is Jesus who provides that information during the engagement with the Pharisees



Perhaps there was a lot of adultery going on or maybe a lot of accusations calling for the ultimate punishment. Could be that trying to decided between ‘he said/she said’ was getting out of hand OR maybe Moses realized something else - that only God knows the heart.



And so says Matthew



No matter his reasoning, Moses put into effect – Divorce.
The point is that Divorce was never condoned by God and Jesus made that clear.

Fornication or Adultery?



The verse Matthew 19:9 has been called into question because it seems to offer a legitimate reason for divorce – something called ‘fornication’, but there seems to be only one thing can separates the married couple – death.

There is a difference between adultery and fornication which is evidence through several bible verses.



Adultery is important enough to warrant a commandment and even in adultery divorce is not an option, which might be the reason adulterers were supposed to be stoned to death – because only through death can either partner be free of their commitment to the other.

Both adultery and fornication have the sex act in common, the difference is that only a married person can commit adultery. The joining of two in marriage before God was not just a commitment that joined the two in flesh, it also joined the two spiritually with God.

With that information it becomes clear why a married couple can never divorce and why adultery is so offensive to God as to warrant being one of the commandments.

On the other hand, fornication is a sex act involving a single person, one who is not married, including those who have been married but widowed. Although the bible still considers sex, outside of marriage, an offence does contain the spiritual elements of marriage.

Now about the quote of Matthew 19:9 in which it fornication is thought to be sufficient for divorce, there is the question of how that could even be possible – because fornication is an act of a single person. However, there could be some confusion as to how the quote is interpreted.

Consider the bible passages



Note, that the man who could not prove his claim must remain married all of his days, but if the man proves his claim, he is not granted a divorce, he doesn’t need one because the penalty for the woman’s deceit is death and thus the man will be single again. ALSO, note that she did not commit adultery because the fornication preceded the marriage bed – it was merely the fact that it occurred at all which gave the husband the right to have her stoned to death and get out of the marriage. (Women of course had not such options as there is absolutely no way to determine if a man is a virgin)

CONCLUSION:
According to the bible, in many places beginning in Genesis and through the testimony of Jesus words, divorce was never acceptable to God, so those who divorce today are not really divorced so any sexual acts would be adultery on the part of the (non-divorced, still married) person.

Of course the individual could always CHOOSE a life of complete abstinence, BUT that won’t help much if lustful thoughts seep in – because God know the heart and even the thought is an act of adultery for a married person.

In effect, (according to the information presented here ) nearly every Christian divorcee is an unrepentant sinner.