Biology verse Morales?

[Enginseer]

Okay so to the extent of my knowledge, a good Christian waits until marriage to propagate his seed "You shall not commit adultery."

Yet biology has proven that sex is essential for the continuation of a species. If we are in some form or another, related to all living creatures on Earth.[even for Creationist, we came from the dust and the animals certainly didn't appear from outer space] How come we must wait until marriage to co-populate with but one female.

When in other species, the males attempts to impregnate as many females as possible. [Which can be seen in our own species by the desire of males to seek alternative mates]

Killing and stealing I can easily understand as sin, but sex isn't some disgusting perverted negative event. It's essential for all human life, the only reason I believe people would see it as seen is because of the dopamine it releases, which is why it's enjoyable.

Also why would God have one of the commandments as "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

God is all knowing, so why would the commandment only partake to that time era. It could mean that it was interpreted wrong, possibly what happened with "You shall not commit adultery." as well. However Gods words would be eternal.

Also, I believe life starts after birth, before then you are but an embryo. Technically you're preventing a potential life with contraception [which some people see as interfering with God's decided fate]. Yet you cannot possibly have 50 000 children so how does one justify these things?

I apoligise if these questions are too confronting, yet they plague my mind rendering me completely lost in my beliefs.

[RickD]

When you say Biology verse Morales, do you mean Esai Morales? http://static.tvfanatic.com/images/gall ... icture.jpg

[Kurieuo]

We are the only species I know of who can rise above our natural inclination and be otherwise. Is there such a thing as perversion in the animal kingdom, or does this only apply to humans? Do you really believe we should reduce ourselves to look towards animal behaviour for justification as to what is naturally alright for humans to do?

Some adult species "rape" their young. Your logic appears to suggest it would be alright for us humans to be likewise? I gather this does not fit well with your moral intuitions. At least I hope so! So obviously we both believe humans should rise above and not simply do what animals do.

The question one should then ask is why we should bother rising above if to do so has no profit to us.

[Dee]

1. We don't rise above our nature. What you see as "rising above" is part of our nature.

2. Humans are different from other animals. Obviously we aren't going to try act like an animal we are not.

3. Think about the role of women and marriage at different points in time. For most of recorded history, it wasn't about love. It was politics and monetary gain. Women were treated as property, and once a woman had slept with a man she was worth less. The religious laws helped to preserve the woman's "value". It's good to know we've developed our morals past that type thinking. Our relationships and marriages are not typically about politics and money anymore. The paradigm has changed.

4. Consider that the ratio of men:women is about 1:1. Over the history of our species, we've learned monogamy works better than the alpha-male system. We are social animals and
we've learned certain behaviors have a greater benefit to the greatest number of individuals in our society.

5. If you want to keep god involved, ask yourself, "where in the Bible does it specifically say with no ambiguity that everything has to be interpreted in a certain exact way for all eternity? Or were some of those laws written for the era in which they were written with social norms of the time being taken into account for maximum adoption of said laws?" Considering interpretations of the stories in the bible have been changing since they were first written, its probably not too hard to continue in that tradition.

6. Prohibition on contraception -> make more believers, increase our tribe's size, increase our army, have more workers, outbreed the other religions -> Religion cares about protecting and propagating itself, and controlling its members' reproductive systems has worked well

[Kurieuo]

1. We don't rise above our nature. What you see as "rising above" is part of our nature.

Like self-sacrifice makes good natural sense?

2. Humans are different from other animals. Obviously we aren't going to try act like an animal we are not.

So you agree with me then that just because animals do something is no reason why humans should.

3. Think about the role of women and marriage at different points in time. For most of recorded history, it wasn't about love. It was politics and monetary gain. Women were treated as property, and once a woman had slept with a man she was worth less. The religious laws helped to preserve the woman's "value". It's good to know we've developed our morals past that type thinking. Our relationships and marriages are not typically about politics and money anymore. The paradigm has changed.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying women are logically not as valuable as men?

4. Consider that the ratio of men:women is about 1:1. Over the history of our species, we've learned monogamy works better than the alpha-male system. We are social animals and we've learned certain behaviors have a greater benefit to the greatest number of individuals in our society.

Can you provide evidence of when modern human beings were not monogamous? And so what if certain behaviours have greater benefit to greatest number of individuals. Now I know that, why shouldn't you and I shake off such behaviours to favour those that have the greatest benefit to ourselves?

5. If you want to keep god involved, ask yourself, "where in the Bible does it specifically say with no ambiguity that everything has to be interpreted in a certain exact way for all eternity? Or were some of those laws written for the era in which they were written with social norms of the time being taken into account for maximum adoption of said laws?" Considering interpretations of the stories in the bible have been changing since they were first written, its probably not too hard to continue in that tradition.

I don't know how this is relevant to me or anything I've said so don't feel the need to respond.

6. Prohibition on contraception -> make more believers, increase our tribe's size, increase our army, have more workers, outbreed the other religions -> Religion cares about protecting and propagating itself, and controlling its members' reproductive systems has worked well

Again, I don't know how this relates to me. Perhaps you can explain?

[Enginseer]

While I believe we are very similar to animals we have some differences.

First humans gain pleasure from sex, which other animals do not. Animals do not rape the young, as they have no desire to. If humans where more like animals it's arguable that we would be less immoral, only having sex for strictly reproduction purposes, not pleasure. I do not believe any human should have to suffer at the hand of another, which is a view I believe many none-religious people agree with.

One interesting thing however, Dolphins have been known to have sex for pleasure. Lacking empathy, they are known to gang bang and rape as well as have homosexual relations through each others blow holes. Are dolphins evil for this? Everything is relative.

[Kurieuo]

Everything is relative.

If everything is relative then why are we discussing anything? Anyone's opinion is just as good as the next person's.

[August]

Everything is relative.

Then how is that statement true?

[Enginseer]

Everything is relative.

If everything is relative then why are we discussing anything? Anyone's opinion is just as good as the next person's.

"Anyone's opinion is just as good as the next person's" - Relative to you.

A perfect example is what shape is the Earth?

There is no absolute frame of reference. Relative to a 3-dimensional universe the Earth is roughly spherical, yet I know for a fact that in a 4 dimensional universe, if I was travelling close to the speed of light and passed the Earth, relative to me it would undergo length contraction and be extremely distorted, even coming to the point of being completely flat.

It's a hard theory to grasp, but everything is relative.

Albert Einstein's ability to think like this with out being encouraged is why he is seen in the scientific community as a genius. The same as Isaac Newton did with the theory of gravity.

Special Relativity does not apply directly to our opinion's [obviously].

Opinions or hypothesis's can be tested with a logical procedure, otherwise known as an experiment. Yet if someone really believes in something, relative to them it exists. Their opinions can be changed through education however.

This thread is a bit messy as it appears that I've mixed inertial frames of reference with human opinion, it's late I may fix it when I can think more clearly, sorry.

[jlay]

What a bunch of non-sense.

First the statement, "everything is relative," is a self-defeating statement.
Further, that ludicrous mess about 4 dimensions, and you know for a fact, etc. is just a bunch of hogwash. Relatively speaking of course.

[Dee]

Kurieuo, sorry for not being specific. My responses 1&2 were for you. The others were for enginseer's original post.

With regard to self-sacrifice. It's natural in many species to preserve the life of the child. Preserve the next generations. That seems more apparent. Sacrificing ourselves for others who are not family is less obvious but still linked to empathy and serving/preserving society.

Yes, I agree with you that we should act like humans. It makes no sense to act like another animal. We are human.

I never said women were less valuable than men, and I do not imply it in the slightest. Rather, I was talking about the change in how women and marriage have been treated. This century has had a great move towards equality for women (though some places are still lacking) and a change in the purpose of marriage. I thought this was relevant because of the OP's quoting the commandment and post in general.

The first example of polygamy that came to mind is the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints at the Zion ranch. Big news year or two ago. But that's beside the point. I was responding to the OP's comment about males trying to impregnate as many females as possible.
As for why behaviors that help society as whole matter, imagine everyone acted completely for themselves. Our society would collapse. It doesn't take much imagination. We are also empathetic and social beings. As a general rule, we don't like being isolated. And that helps to explain our actions. Certainly, nothing is completely black and white. We do have our own goals, and we do try to achieve them. But there are sociological and psychological reasons for why most of us are bounded in our means to accomplish our goals and even in our goals. This is starting to get off the original topic now.

As for my segment on God and laws, I felt it useful to include an explanation of how different interpretations can be taken from scripture. There are many different Christians and different interpretations of scripture. The OP seemed to be expressing a conflict with scripture. I was simply saying in a roundabout way the perceived conflict depends on how you interpret what is said.

As for my point on contraception. The OP mentioned it, so I thought I would too. And I think the prohibition on contraception should be examined with an historical framework in mind.

Hopefully that clarifies my comments and their relevance to the original poster, or at least how I see them as relevant.

[cslewislover]

While I believe we are very similar to animals we have some differences.

First humans gain pleasure from sex, which other animals do not. Animals do not rape the young, as they have no desire to. If humans where more like animals it's arguable that we would be less immoral, only having sex for strictly reproduction purposes, not pleasure. I do not believe any human should have to suffer at the hand of another, which is a view I believe many none-religious people agree with.

One interesting thing however, Dolphins have been known to have sex for pleasure. Lacking empathy, they are known to gang bang and rape as well as have homosexual relations through each others blow holes. Are dolphins evil for this? Everything is relative.

Yes, humans gain pleasure from sex, but some humans also use sex to dominate and punish, and of course that's immoral. But you say animals do not rape, but then go on to say dolphins rape. Animals will have sex with their offspring, and it's just natural for them. I do not know about dolphins, but, some human societies do gang rape certain persons as a form of punishment.

I'm unclear on much of your op. You sound like you're asking why we shouldn't act like animals.

[Kurieuo]

Everything is relative.

If everything is relative then why are we discussing anything? Anyone's opinion is just as good as the next person's.

"Anyone's opinion is just as good as the next person's" - Relative to you.

A perfect example is what shape is the Earth?

There is no absolute frame of reference. Relative to a 3-dimensional universe the Earth is roughly spherical, yet I know for a fact that in a 4 dimensional universe, if I was travelling close to the speed of light and passed the Earth, relative to me it would undergo length contraction and be extremely distorted, even coming to the point of being completely flat.

So there being no absolute frame of reference... is it really true that there is no absolute frame of references or are you just relatively speaking?

[Enginseer]

While I believe we are very similar to animals we have some differences.

First humans gain pleasure from sex, which other animals do not. Animals do not rape the young, as they have no desire to. If humans where more like animals it's arguable that we would be less immoral, only having sex for strictly reproduction purposes, not pleasure. I do not believe any human should have to suffer at the hand of another, which is a view I believe many none-religious people agree with.

One interesting thing however, Dolphins have been known to have sex for pleasure. Lacking empathy, they are known to gang bang and rape as well as have homosexual relations through each others blow holes. Are dolphins evil for this? Everything is relative.

Yes, humans gain pleasure from sex, but some humans also use sex to dominate and punish, and of course that's immoral. But you say animals do not rape, but then go on to say dolphins rape. Animals will have sex with their offspring, and it's just natural for them. I do not know about dolphins, but, some human societies do gang rape certain persons as a form of punishment.

I'm unclear on much of your op. You sound like you're asking why we shouldn't act like animals.

News flash, humans are animals. To understand you most conceive this.

[Enginseer]

Everything is relative.

If everything is relative then why are we discussing anything? Anyone's opinion is just as good as the next person's.

"Anyone's opinion is just as good as the next person's" - Relative to you.

A perfect example is what shape is the Earth?

There is no absolute frame of reference. Relative to a 3-dimensional universe the Earth is roughly spherical, yet I know for a fact that in a 4 dimensional universe, if I was travelling close to the speed of light and passed the Earth, relative to me it would undergo length contraction and be extremely distorted, even coming to the point of being completely flat.

So there being no absolute frame of reference... is it really true that there is no absolute frame of references or are you just relatively speaking?

In special relativity you can only be in an inertial frame of reference if you are travelling at a constant rate. In this case you can never be aware that you are even moving. Yet if you where accelerating then you are no longer in an inertial frame of reference.

I can relate this to opinion as new knowledge replaces acceleration. Once your insights have been expanded, from any source, then you are no longer in an 'inertial frame of reference' and it justifies people being able to learn new things.

Dolphins don't think they're evil, but you do. Neither has evidence that they are or are not so both are respectively in an 'inertial frame of reference' Neither one is more correct than the other.

Scientists do believe everything has a cause, I don't believe any person is more evil than another.