We choose to have sex and if we don't want the 'natural' conclusions to follow - we use protection (that's just not 'natural')

Would you really be choosing between a man and God or are you more concerned about the differences in behaviors between two different religions?

If you believe in a god and someone else believes in a god, but neither of you believes there is more than one god - then is it possible you both believe in the same god and that the differences in behaviors between your religions are a man made construct?

Perhaps the questions you should asking yourself would be more along the lines of what AdventureBegins has laid out.

And perhaps one other - if there is love and respect in your heart as you interact with people and nature, what offence could you commit in the eyes of any god?

WELL - since religion was brought up anyway....

The fact is that no two beliefs are the same, so no two sets of guidelines for living are exactly the same, not even between respected authorities who claim their beliefs stem from the very same source.

When a person seeks to make others conform to his or her beliefs and personal guidelines for living, that person is assuming the authority that is reserved for the power that is beyond the scope of our experience, knowledge, and understanding.

In the case of Christianity, for example, the authority is God and the only power that can save belongs to Jesus. From my understanding of Christianity, no human other than Jesus has the power save, because any rule one person forces another to follow, has no saving grace for either person, that power belongs to Jesus.

Following that line of thinking, it makes sense that each individual must choose what to believe and construct their own guidelines for living and be a faithful follower of those guidelines.

My conclusion here is simple – if a person’s beliefs have influenced the guidelines by which he is to live, and those guidelines require that he force others to live by his own personal guidelines, then that person is wielding authority and assuming power, neither of which belong to him.

It is risky business, this idea of religion – isn’t it? It seems far less risky to live by your own convictions while making sure that everyone else is free to live by theirs. In this way, authority and power remain with that which is beyond the scope of our experience, knowledge, and understanding.

I have a question to ask and this seems a place to ask it.
We call the forced adaptations which Monsanto makes to seed/plant genetics "GMO". Are they in effect creating new genes or will the plant's genes, after several or many generations, revert or are they in fact changed to the point of new genes?

Perhaps Monsanto doesn't know, but just thought I'd ask. The reason being that we are told that the plant itself and 'fruit' it brings is no different, that it is still the same species, with no detractions or additions to the quality we have always known.

So it is a confusing issue or is just confusing for those of us who lack sufficient education in this area? Well, I'm trying to learn, so your responses will be appreciated.

Some new genes are not what you would call functional and some seem to displace or perhaps replace genes that pre-existed the new one. In fact we have many genes (warning, laymans terms) which, though they could be functional, are not 'switched on', so to speak, so are not being expressed. So the question is, why wouldn't it seem logical to you that new genes are not necessarily meant to be additions to but rather replacement for unuseful genes?

As long as the environment continues to be beneficial to the particular current life form, why would you think that genetic changes should continue to occur at a pace that would allow us to see major transormation. Particularly in species that are higly evolved to adapt in tiny ways to, often, short term environmental changes?

What would be so beneficial about continued genetic build up? Wouldn't it make more sense for such species to adapt in small ways and delete the old progamming?

I think there may be some misconceptions about duplications - or perhaps I misread the article I just added to this thread.

Let me know what you think about what the article says about 'duplication' - perhaps you can make it more clear for me. thanks!

I found the following article – on the open web so I can’t attest to its quality, although much of what I read is compatible with some of the class material I’ve covered.

The reading is kind of intensive – technical and filled with the jargon of the field. But judging by what I’ve read in this thread, those who may be interested will assimilate it.

Just thought I’d contribute.

Oh, by the way, what I’ve posted here are just some snippets of some parts I found supportive of one side of this debate. I think which side will become apparent.

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/Origins-of-New-Genes-and-Pseudogenes-835

Define the two terms - Pro-life & Pro-choice -
without specifically attributing either to abortion or to punishment.

For what other reasons would a person incorporate 'Pro-life' as part of their values? What moral implications would that have for this person?

Similarly, why would a person incorporate 'Pro-choice as part of their values? What moral implications would that have for this person?

The terms are not relavent only to abortion or to punishment, so what else could these apply to?

Just something to contemplate.

The end of the above story portrays the real irony - as a last resort, forget divine intervention and seek medical attention from other humans.

Every person who takes the risk of market transactions are agreeing to taking that risk. Unless there foul play, risk is the name of the game, which is why there is so much money to be made in such transactions.

Currently, the list of top risk takers are those who risk the most amount of funds with the least amount to loose whether the deal creates or loses funds.

When there is a lost, the effect on mega millionaires is negligable. When there is a gain, the effect on the same people is negligable becasue they only pay 15% tax on the gain.

On the other hand, the general public are actually taking a much greater risk because their loss can be devastating - but that's the name of the game. Their gain is also more costly because they don't have the tax loop holes available to shield them from a higer overall tax rate.

Either way, if you play the game to the tune of millions (not likely for the general public)losses are negligable.

Since the tax rate is not equal to any other wage taxation, then it seems fair, or rather, it seems more equitable to charge a tax on each transaction. It's the least negligable amount per person of any of the negligable risks, and it's benefit as tax revenue is huge.

It sounds like the 'Robin Hood Tax' is simply a corrective measure and should be put in place.

Not to mention that the work of growing food and having to prepare it for meals and for storage is one of the healthiest endeavors of all.

We so often devote ourselved to dull mindless and routine exercise that we lose much of the benefit of the activity. What's worse is that ever pervading idea that "well, I really had a good workout, I'm going to have that big banana split".

That's a good way to envision a creator, but many humans tend to believe that THEY are the center (egocentricity)of their god's focus.

The egocentric view maintains that humans are the supreme caretakers of the Earthly environment and that their god caters to them in that capacity.

Yet that view is problematic because we have enough evidence to believe that if humans destroy themselves, taking half of all existing creatures with them, that 'nature' will find a balance in the devastation, and develop another biodiverse environment in which new creatures and new plants will thrive.

Jesse Jackson recently said that people of faith "live in their faith under the law" of the land in which they reside. In other words, it is more important to live by the morals of one's faith in harmony with the laws that provide the moral structure of civil live than it is to structure the law of the land around only one set of religious morals.

Jesse Jackson and many other believers feel the same way, as do many deists, agnostics, and atheists. That should be 'nature's way' for clearly we are more subjects to nature, within this evnironment, than we are of any creator outside of the environment.

Perhaps that's the way it was intended to be. Perhaps the real test, if a god intended one, is how well humans can exist in harmony with the the environment in which they have been placed.

Actually I have a few days between semesters and I was catching up on current events and found the article. In case you don’t read every post I’ll reprint another explanation that I gave to Spider here:

I wanted to show an example of how bias can form about an entire group and I exemplified that by showing a worst case scenario. If there is power in prayer, how should it be used? Not the prayer – the power.

In the case, I posted some people chose to use that power to fuel animosity, build hate, and diminish tolerance.

It is a ridiculous article, but so are many other overt actions by real people caught in the act. If we witness enough of the ‘real’ thing, then this article doesn’t seem so ridiculous.

I used religion because there is so much happening where religion is at the forefront, such as reproductive choice, LGBT issues, school curriculums and internationally as well. I didn’t look for this particular article, it was just there.

I was disgusted by it, but when I thought about why, it wasn’t because these people were religious. The reason I was disgusted is because that kind of behavior drives a wedge between groups.



Thank you, I posted it again, that was a great explanation to support how you view it. Yes they must interpret the law because there are no two cases that are ever quite the same. There is a vast difference however, between what jurors do and Supreme Court Judges do.

A Juror is attempting to determine the innocence or guilt of the party in question. If found guilty, the jurors may also determine the level of guilt, which is also an interpretation of the law because some have various punitive conditions attached to them.

What Supreme Court Justices do is far more complicated. They must review Constitutional law, where State Law is involved. In some cases the justices must review and compare both State and Federal Constitutions.

When a challenge is brought questioning a law’s constitutionality, the result of the judicial review sets ‘precedent’. As precedent, it becomes the benchmark by which similar challenges are judged, unless or until, a future judge at a future date quantifies logical errors in the previous judgment, and substantiates (usually using current ideals), her new interpretation.

When Congress enacts laws, they are supposed to be reviewed for constitutionality, but as we’ve discussed, changes occur and a law can be challenged.

What the legislative branch had in mind when the law was enacted cannot always be discerned, nor can it be understood in the context of the new situation.

So the SCJ ‘interprets’ what ‘should be’ meant by the law – this way it remains a valid law, even if it has a different interpretation.

In cases where the SCJ declares a law unconstitutional, it remains up the our legislators to repeal, amend, or continue to spend a lot of tax dollars defending a law that may continue to be declared unconstitutional. That is exactly what has been happening for over a year with DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act).

So while jurors attempt to compare cases with law to determine a judgment against a person’s actions, the SCJ compare a law to the Constitution to determine the validity of the law and they are the only people who have that power, just as our Federal legislators are the only one who have the power to modify the Constitution in any way.




Yes, and I described above how that happens and it is supposed to happen because the people will it, or because the special power we’ve delegated to the president (found in the Constitution) and in some cases to Congress as a check (like declaration of war), can be acted on without regard to popular consensus. That doesn’t mean we lose control, we just have to mobilize and make any grievances known.

There is one other kind of law that I’ve neglected “Executive Order” and Senators have the ability to enact special interest laws but they are always minor and usually affect a single individual – like issuing a recognition of an individual. (did you know Congress actually votes on those?)



IN TOTAL AGREEMENT!

I apologize for the grand departure from topic – I hope I have made the OP clearer. I hate to write too much in the OP because I know that most people read the first sentence, see who posted it, and make a judgment. So I figured I’d let the thread go where it may.

I wanted to show an example of how bias can form about an entire group and I exemplified that by showing a worst case scenario. If there is power in prayer, how should it be used? Not the prayer – the power.

In the case, I posted some people who chose to use that power to fuel animosity, build hate, and diminish tolerance.

It is a ridiculous article, but so are many other overt actions by real people caught in the act. If we witness enough of the ‘real’ thing, then this article doesn’t seem so ridiculous to the general public.

I used religion because there is so much happening where religion is at the forefront, such as reproductive choice, LGBT issues, school curriculums and internationally as well.

I didn’t look for this particular article, it was just there. I was disgusted by it, but when I thought about why, it wasn’t because these people were religious. The reason I was disgusted is because that kind of behavior drives a wedge between groups.



I was not smearing anyone, you are catering to your bias. You know I’m an atheist and a lesbian, and we have been on opposite sides of issues. But you let that influence what I was doing here. I hope I’m explaining it better.



We are being smeared, and often due to religious beliefs and there are too many overt attempts, at the moment, to diminish our freedoms and equality.

So people of religious persuasion are being grouped and judged with bias that is formed against others who use the same label whether it be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or other. (predominantly Christian right now)



If you don’t understand after reading this post, then I can only apologize that you took offense.

It actually did bother me - and surly you know me well enough by know to know that I surfed the net trying to find out more.

Considering what I've been witnessing recently (which is highly documented)I could have used one of many of the more substantiated examples, but I thought this one was better to show how bias is garnered against religious groups.

I chose this one because it was anonymous and rediculous and becasue I had 'faith' that few if any would agree with the content. I wanted discussion, not an argument.

Jurors do not decide on, or interpret legislation. You forgot to mention, laws under the jurisdiction of States, and localities, and most of all you forgot to mention the people (popular consensus is very powerful).



How did that happen? It wasn’t always like that? That means that the so-called objective standards of Constitution and judges did not hold up otherwise it would not be the way it is today.



It seems you realize that when people are involved in the legislative process, there can be no single objective test to determine which legislations will always be best for our society – because values change.



The answer conflicts with your other comments. Legislation can be constitutional when first enacted and then it must be amended or new legislation added to support the old. So one might think that the judiciary had made the ultimate decision, well after the fact but why did it take so long and what caused the judiciary to review the legislation?



It might help to understand some more about the Constitution.

The Constitution of the U.S. was meant to be the transparency document for the people, so that they knew how their government would work – that’s all it was.

Sovereignty belonged to the people. It would be up to the people to form their own governmental agencies (by state) under which they would be governed. At that point, the federal government was a protectorate, while all the power to legislate lay with people of the states.

Some of the delegates believed that the Constitution should also include a Bill of Rights so that people of the U.S. would be guaranteed certain basic and essential freedoms which could never be overridden by the state governments being created.

The Bill of Rights (10 were originally ratified) was considered to be the most fundamental of rights which the states could not diminish.

If that had been the only single, rigid, objective test – all the other amendments, (17) since the original 10, would not have been needed because the first 10 would have sufficed all by themselves.

There have also been well over 200 Congressional Acts, many of which, only much later, were contested and then repealed. Also, there are many Acts that do not even effect the private sector, but only affect the public (federal) sector.

We can certainly look at history and understand what influences were at work which led to modifications of our laws.



It true, we cannot foresee how culture and attitudes will be changed in the future but you are right that law does play a part in shaping/changing attitudes.

But the law would not be so influential in prompting change - if we could not modernize it when the need to do so is apparent.

That’s why we need to consider social/civil/ethical, morality as something more flexible than the morality that is dictated through rigid religious belief systems.

It's all interesting history that anyone who has been educated in the United States should know - sadly too few actually do. I think it's a flaw in the education system, it really needs modernizing.

http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/2012/04/mrff-press-release-womens-prayer-group-give-them-breast-cancer-in-jesus-name/

Do you expect this kind of thing to carried in main stream news? Well,I havn't checked on Fox - whould you belive them?

It doesn't matter - it was in news somewhere and I thought it opened a good discussion point. Thanks for participating.

- Edit - by the way, in the above url it states the group was anonymous.

I agree, but that does not preclude discussion amongst the people.

When people openly admit that their reason for suggesting, authoring, co-authoring, or supporting a piece of legislation is religious, there is no doubt who is pin-pointing morality or values as originating with religion.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with supporting legislation simply because it happens to be consistent with one’s religious beliefs. However, if religious belief if the only reason for supporting legislation, then it may be legislation which is not agreeable to the wider population.

When that happens, there will be pinpointing, but it’s not the same thing as trying to restrict or limit the freedom of others. In such cases those who are pinpointed are often the offenders because they neither, loose nor gain anything whether the law exists or not.

They deserve to be put on the spot if for no other reason but that others have an opportunity to demonstrate why they think the behavior of those supporters is misguided.

I think the comparison was just - it was an example in response to your statement shown here:

It was meant to demonstrate why there is a difference between morality that is strictly religiously based, and morality that is agreed upon by a diverse group of people.


There are many people in the U.S. who do not want their privacy or reproductive choices invaded or dictated over, based on a religious value, just as there are many who would not approve of legislation that exists in the Middle East.



No matter what the proposed legislation is, it has to be evaluated.

In countries where religion creates the policy there is one objective standard by which to make determinations which is sacred scripture. Of course scripture may be open to interpretation, but generally the actual ruler gets the last word on what interpretation to use.

In the U.S. there is no single objective test with which to determine whether or not proposed legislation meets with specific criteria. If such a test existed, women would not have the vote, African Americans would still be slaves, and so on.

What you see as vague, must be vague because attitudes and cultures change, so we have to be more inclusive of factors that were never of concern in the past.

The question I asked of Msharmony was:

In the United States, when changes or additions to law are proposed, what things should we consider or questions should we ask before implementing legislation to that effect?

I would ask you the same question – and I would add - has there ever been a time in the past or can we foresee a time in the future, in which a single, rigid and unchanging, objective test would suffice in all cases?



I don’t understand all of the above, however by looking at the last sentence quoted below :



I think you may not be in agreement with what I had said previously :


If that’s the case, I would like to understand why you don’t agree or maybe try to explain again what I didn’t understand from the paragraph.