Proof of human evolution?

[Traitorfish]

Did I stutter?

No, I'm just confused as to how we got from the validity of "illicit" as a scientific category to whether or not chemical dependencies are bad for you. I think you've jumped a few steps, there, without letting the rest of us in on the details.

 

[Adjuvant]

No, I'm just confused as to how we got from the validity of "illicit" as a scientific category to whether or not chemical dependencies are bad for you. I think you've jumped a few steps, there, without letting the rest of us in on the details.

Fair. I think, though, admittedly foregoing semantics, I've communicated what I intended to communicate.

I'd reply to Formy, but he's having another "trolly day". Maybe tomorrow.

 

[bhsup]

And I sincerely doubt that anything I do harms God.

No, but things you do may cause God to harm Kittens. THINK OF THE CHILDREN KITTIES!!!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Seriously, though. The fact is we "can" and we "will", but if we keep doing doing it and legitimize it and normalize it, if we're unrepentant about it, we're putting ourselves in grave danger. You know it, deep inside, even if you won't admit it here just because you'll lose a stupid internet argument.

What grave danger exactly?

No, but things you do may cause God to harm Kittens.

Not even God is immune to kitties.

 

[El_Machinae]

To wit, you cannot use science to prove "illicit stimulation of endorphin is bad for the soul", which is what I am arguing.

You're not really arguing, you're just stating. This is one of those things that you just actually cannot know.

Well, not really, because "illicit" is not a scientific category. You might as well talk about the nutritional value of "evil" vegetables, for all the sense it would make.

I think I understand where he's going. I've no doubt that there are a huge variety of potential sexual encounters that would be 'bad' for you. From physical harm to emotional harm. And, I think that there's a large variety of sexual encounters that would be 'good' for you. So, some plants are bad for you. Some are good for you. Sure, no problem. The leap from that to "don't eat shell-fish -> evil!" is a bit of a leap. I also don't think that asking homosexuals to engage in guilt-based celibacy is healthy, either. Sure, it might be better than 'harmful' sex - I'll not disagree.

No, but things you do may cause God to harm Kittens. THINK OF THE CHILDREN KITTIES!!!

I used that threat on my daughter once (regarding something completely non-sexual). She was soooooooo mad at me. Freaked right out.
"NO! God doesn't NOT kill a kitten every time I come out of my room after bed time! He does NOT"

 

[Adjuvant]

The leap from that to "don't eat shell-fish -> evil!" is a bit of a leap.

I'm not a covenantist. I'm a Christian, and a pretty liberal one, comparatively. All you do is intentionally misrepresent me, when you know better, when you've read what I have to say, and I'm getting tired of it.

 

[El_Machinae]

The prohibition against homosexual sex, from the outside, is more akin to "don't eat shellfish" than "love your neighbor". It appears to be just a random rule, based off of old, imperfect, wisdom. So, there's healthy food, there's unhealthy food. No one will deny that. And yet, the Muslims insist that eating pork is a gateway food to Hell. No one's suggesting to stop looking for trichinosis. And so it's an uphill battle to not look like a merely 'liberalised' covenantist, just as they do with the weird fetish regarding pork or dogs.

 

[Adjuvant]

My ideas on the matter aren't based on Leviticus. That fact is apparently completely lost on you, which is odd since most of my discussion on the matter has been direct replies to your queries.

It's like I say what I understand and why, and you're like, "no, no, you believe this because of the Bible because you're Christian". You are wrong. The way you pigeonhole me into your messed up conception of "what a Christian is" is wrong. The next time you care to ask me a question in this manner, I'm just going to say you're wrong and let you be ignorant.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm still wondering how we're supposed to understand "illicit" as a material property of human activity. We never did explain that bit.

 

[Adjuvant]

I'm still wondering how we're supposed to understand "illicit" as a material property of human activity. We never did explain that bit.

Fine. In that statement...

"You can use science to prove "illicit stimulation of endorphin is harmful for an individual"."

... amend "illicit" to "excessive and otherwise unnecessary".

Since that's apparently the only issue with which you disagreed, since you've sidetracked the entire discussion for the sake of semantics when you knew very well what I was implying unless you're a dolt, which I don't believe you are, what is your opinion of the rest?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm still confused about the grave danger bit.

 

[timtofly]

Is there a difference in the Hebrew concept of the "hardening of the heart" and the Greek concept of a "reprobate mind"?

 

[warpus]

MobBoss once honestly put forward the idea that if homosexual marriage were legalized in the U.S., the country would collapse due to the undue strain on the healthcare system by AIDS infested homosexuals.

I will never forget that, because it's so ridiculous.. But that sounds pretty grave to me.

 

[Traitorfish]

Fine. In that statement...

"You can use science to prove "illicit stimulation of endorphin is harmful for an individual"."

... amend "illicit" to "excessive and otherwise unnecessary".

No, see, that's the same problem. You're jamming a moral judgement into a material claim, which doesn't work. The only way you could salvage it is by defining "excessive" as "that which causes harm", but then you're not making a claim, you're just stating a truism.

Since that's apparently the only issue with which you disagreed, since you've sidetracked the entire discussion for the sake of semantics when you knew very well what I was implying unless you're a dolt, which I don't believe you are, what is your opinion of the rest?

No, see, I'm afraid I really don't know what you're implying, because you're not talking in straight lines. Throwing around works like "illicit" and "excessive" and insisting that you're talking science-talk, what am I to make of that? Until you can figure out what you're saying, until you can pin down what you're actually trying to assert about the material world, there's no reason to expect the rest of us to understand.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm still confused about the grave danger bit.

Grave danger to the soul. It's not something you can notice in the material world. It could be a shout-out to fundamental morality, which makes doing something wrong, 'still wrong', even if you wouldn't get caught.

 

[timtofly]

I am sure there are no mental problems. That is just a figment of the imagination any ways.

 

[El_Machinae]

My ideas on the matter aren't based on Leviticus.

Didn't really think so. Worst case, you seem tempted to give it the odd nod, but ehn, only in a totally off-hand way.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Fine. In that statement...

"You can use science to prove "illicit stimulation of endorphin is harmful for an individual"."

... amend "illicit" to "excessive and otherwise unnecessary".

Since that's apparently the only issue with which you disagreed, since you've sidetracked the entire discussion for the sake of semantics when you knew very well what I was implying unless you're a dolt, which I don't believe you are, what is your opinion of the rest?

You still haven't shown how science can "prove" "stimulation of endorphin is harmful for an individual" under any circumstances.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Grave danger to the soul. It's not something you can notice in the material world. It could be a shout-out to fundamental morality, which makes doing something wrong, 'still wrong', even if you wouldn't get caught.

I too first thought that's what was the grave danger.

But that doesn't make sense in the context. I know the grave danger is real, but won't admit to it because I'd lose an internet argument. That throws me off.

One it implies I am a fake atheist since I realise the grave danger I am in. Two I would wager my soul on winning an argument.

But that would be like calling me a incredibly daft pillock. Now we all know only atheists dabble in that sort of provocative behaviour. So I am sure that's not the grave danger.

Which means I continue to be confused. It's a comfortable familiar feeling, don't think I'm complaining.

 

[El_Machinae]

I too first thought that's what was the grave danger.

Well, the 'soul danger' is that it's a violation of morality. And, as timtofly alluded, it's very reasonable (hence I believe it) that 'soul danger' is actually bad for you on a spiritual/emotional level. I don't believe in souls, but I do like the connotations of the word 'spiritual'. I know what it means. The big issue is that 'soul danger' isn't necessarily bad for you in a material way. Like, aside from emotional poisoning that will manifest later on, there's no expectation that anything like 'karma' will create consequences for your behaviour either way. Of course, there are consequences to your moral choices is people end up noticing them, but that's a different story.