Comments on: Science of good and evil http://online.worldmag.com/2008/01/15/science-of-good-and-evil/ A forum for discussion of news that arises at the intersection of Christianity and culture. Sun, 21 Mar 2010 12:21:59 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Reg http://online.worldmag.com/2008/01/15/science-of-good-and-evil/comment-page-1/#comment-264267 Reg Sat, 19 Jan 2008 19:28:28 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/01/15/science-of-good-and-evil/#comment-264267 37-I would like to know more about Kansas... 14-Same thing here, I just chose to stay away... 31-"So, you feel comfortable judging people that you know nothing about? Also immoral." "Are you being immoral by judging me for judging them?" Thank you for pointing this out. It was well worded. I would love to write an entire book on this subject alone. The Art of the Question, by Goldberg, is a great starting place. 37-I would like to know more about Kansas…
14-Same thing here, I just chose to stay away…
31-”So, you feel comfortable judging people that you know nothing about? Also immoral.”

“Are you being immoral by judging me for judging them?” Thank you for pointing this out. It was well worded. I would love to write an entire book on this subject alone. The Art of the Question, by Goldberg, is a great starting place.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: rdean http://online.worldmag.com/2008/01/15/science-of-good-and-evil/comment-page-1/#comment-264078 rdean Sat, 19 Jan 2008 06:59:40 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/01/15/science-of-good-and-evil/#comment-264078 I swear you people think Jesus was born in Kansas. I swear you people think Jesus was born in Kansas.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: Reg http://online.worldmag.com/2008/01/15/science-of-good-and-evil/comment-page-1/#comment-263918 Reg Fri, 18 Jan 2008 21:06:06 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/01/15/science-of-good-and-evil/#comment-263918 It's the Romans again! It’s the Romans again!

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: Flaming Icarus http://online.worldmag.com/2008/01/15/science-of-good-and-evil/comment-page-1/#comment-263784 Flaming Icarus Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:22:30 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/01/15/science-of-good-and-evil/#comment-263784 Annelise, I have no idea what you're on about in post 31. Just stop comparing your daughters to homosexuals, that's all I'm saying. Annelise,

I have no idea what you’re on about in post 31.

Just stop comparing your daughters to homosexuals, that’s all I’m saying.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: rdean http://online.worldmag.com/2008/01/15/science-of-good-and-evil/comment-page-1/#comment-263740 rdean Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:22:49 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/01/15/science-of-good-and-evil/#comment-263740 She thinks she speaks for God. Boy, is she in for a rude awakening. She thinks she speaks for God. Boy, is she in for a rude awakening.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: SteveG http://online.worldmag.com/2008/01/15/science-of-good-and-evil/comment-page-1/#comment-263645 SteveG Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:12:04 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/01/15/science-of-good-and-evil/#comment-263645 <i>You can be loved and love without sex ever being a part of the picture. Love doesn’t always have to include sex. Sex isn’t always about love, either.</i> Both true but also both completely irrelevant here. What gives you the right to decide what other can and can't do? And how does it hurt you? You can be loved and love without sex ever being a part of the picture.
Love doesn’t always have to include sex.
Sex isn’t always about love, either.

Both true but also both completely irrelevant here.

What gives you the right to decide what other can and can’t do?

And how does it hurt you?

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: CCC http://online.worldmag.com/2008/01/15/science-of-good-and-evil/comment-page-1/#comment-263627 CCC Fri, 18 Jan 2008 12:34:08 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/01/15/science-of-good-and-evil/#comment-263627 <i>Pinker first explains the difference between a moralization and an opinion: 1) People see morality as universal; . . .</i> That's a rather narrow opinion. What about the other half of humanity whose morals are un-universal, a.k.a. relative? Even though everyone is moral, they are either moralists or unmoralists. Unmoralists say (in a tone devoid of moral pronouncement) that morality doesn’t exist. Everything beyond this point excludes all relativists. Pinker first explains the difference between a moralization and an opinion: 1) People see morality as universal; . . .

That’s a rather narrow opinion. What about the other half of humanity whose morals are un-universal, a.k.a. relative? Even though everyone is moral, they are either moralists or unmoralists. Unmoralists say (in a tone devoid of moral pronouncement) that morality doesn’t exist. Everything beyond this point excludes all relativists.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: annelisefrench http://online.worldmag.com/2008/01/15/science-of-good-and-evil/comment-page-1/#comment-263563 annelisefrench Fri, 18 Jan 2008 02:41:57 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/01/15/science-of-good-and-evil/#comment-263563 So, you feel comfortable judging people that you know nothing about? Also immoral. Are you being immoral by judging me for judging them? I believe you are well-meaning, but I also believe you are naively suggesting that certain people should never seek to love and be loved in a romantic/sexual way just because of who they are. That is really, really cruel, even if you don’t intend it to be. You can be loved and love without sex ever being a part of the picture. Love doesn't always have to include sex. Sex isn't always about love, either. So, you feel comfortable judging people that you know nothing about? Also immoral.

Are you being immoral by judging me for judging them?

I believe you are well-meaning, but I also believe you are naively suggesting that certain people should never seek to love and be loved in a romantic/sexual way just because of who they are. That is really, really cruel, even if you don’t intend it to be.

You can be loved and love without sex ever being a part of the picture.
Love doesn’t always have to include sex.
Sex isn’t always about love, either.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: annelisefrench http://online.worldmag.com/2008/01/15/science-of-good-and-evil/comment-page-1/#comment-263558 annelisefrench Fri, 18 Jan 2008 02:27:25 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/01/15/science-of-good-and-evil/#comment-263558 Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled. But fornicators and adulterers God will judge. Hebrews 13:4 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise, also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, MEN with MEN committing what is SHAMEFUL, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. Romans 2:26 For shame.... Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled. But fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
Hebrews 13:4

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise, also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, MEN with MEN committing what is SHAMEFUL, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
Romans 2:26

For shame….

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: Flaming Icarus http://online.worldmag.com/2008/01/15/science-of-good-and-evil/comment-page-1/#comment-263549 Flaming Icarus Fri, 18 Jan 2008 02:12:00 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/01/15/science-of-good-and-evil/#comment-263549 <i>My daughters, if no one chooses to marry them, will have the same life. Is that so awful? Is that what they would have wanted? No, they would rather find someone, just like everyone does, regardless of sexuality.</i> (I tried to stay away from this argument, but I'm weak...) Annelise, Your daughters have the opportunity and your blessing to try, try, try, attempt, stumble, try and try again to find their life partner. If they fail, then they fail. At least they had the opportunity to find success. On the other hand, you're saying that homosexuals should not even be allowed to try. Do not pass "Go", do not collect $200, go straight to "Fail". You simply cannot draw a parallel between your daughters' lives and the lives you are advocating for homosexuals. For shame. My daughters, if no one chooses to marry them, will have the same life. Is that so awful?
Is that what they would have wanted? No, they would rather find someone, just like everyone does, regardless of sexuality.

(I tried to stay away from this argument, but I’m weak…)

Annelise,
Your daughters have the opportunity and your blessing to try, try, try, attempt, stumble, try and try again to find their life partner. If they fail, then they fail. At least they had the opportunity to find success.

On the other hand, you’re saying that homosexuals should not even be allowed to try. Do not pass “Go”, do not collect $200, go straight to “Fail”.

You simply cannot draw a parallel between your daughters’ lives and the lives you are advocating for homosexuals.

For shame.

Report comment to moderator

]]>