morosophos

Great Scott.It sounds like you linked the Big Bang Theory, astrophysical genesis, and metaphysics all together. *applause*I'm not sure if I agree with (or perhaps I simply misunderstand) your idea of a cyclic universe. What I comprehend is that from the beginning of creation, the heavenly bodies are in a constant state of change in respect to their roles. That is, the Earth becomes the Sun, the Moon becomes the Earth, and the Sun becomes the Moon?or at least a change of the same principle. The idea sounds very nice when compared with Egyptian mythology, but it doesn't necessarily work like that in astrophysics.The Big Bang Theory indicates that in the beginning there was a giant mass of all materia, in which was stored all energy. By some sort of instability within the mass, there was a gigantic explosion. Gravity's natural force of attraction pulled clumps of mass together, which in turn pulled augmented amounts of mass in towards them. The clumps eventually formed the heavenly bodies. However, all "mass" isn't the same. Whatever instability there was at the beginning caused atoms to differentiate, if there hadn't already been different types at the start. From the difference in atoms, there was able to be formed different brands of heavenly bodies: lifeless clumps of dust like the Moon, chaotic stormy rocks like the Earth, and flaming balls of helium and hydrogen like the Sun. Because there are these different kinds of mass, it's very unlikely that something like the Earth or Moon would be able to morph into a star. The Earth, for instance, is mostly carbon-based, and carbon is an inadequate material for producing the nuclear energy required of a star. The Moon is an even less hopeful prospect.However, you say that all mass is slowly becoming energy. This is true in that a star's helium fusion process is constantly changing a very small amount of mass into energy each time the reaction is completed. It's my train of thought, though, that eventually through the explosion of many stars that the energy once emitted will come towards these stellar clouds, causing the mass to be energised and hence become unstable. The clouds will become seriously radioactive, and like any radioactive isotope, the mass will seek to become stable by tossing out alpha and beta particles as well as gamma rays. The particles may bond together and form new mass.As for newer, smaller solar systems coming about, I must agree. Many experts in the field believe that all mass in the universe is growing farther and farther apart. When a solar system dies, it's very possible that the vast and growing expanse throughout the remnants may cause the pieces to come together into more than one system. For instance, if a the star of a large solar system were to supernova and hence destroy all its orbiting planets and so on, the huge cloud in the aftermath would cover a great deal of space. Say that at the end points of this cloud, mass begins to come together. The gravitational pull of these clumps attracts more mass, and eventually the clumps become their own respective stars with their own orbiting families. Two solar systems have come out of one.The hardest part of your theory for me to understand is the bit where you say "Sun is a reflection of vibration of planet?s Spirit (light), which is also called ?heaven?. Angel is a reflection of vibration of human Spirit ? light, which is hidden in the average vibration of planet?s Spirit." Could you expand on this?

Of course, GH and other hormones ample in the food and milk supply in many industrialised countries has a lot to do with the height discrepancy between generations. Here's an example, however, how height was affected in the opposite direction through genetic drift. The Pygmy people are famous for their tendency towards a smaller size. This size is surely not accounted for because they don't drink the same milk or eat the same foods as perhaps you or I would eat or drink; rather, the size difference is accounted for because their island is very small and therefore it has only capacity enough to support a small system of life. Rather than few people living on the island, their bodies adapted over time to become shorter. The smaller size enables them to consume less food and resources of the island to survive.

Genetic drift causes evolution. Genetic drift itself is often caused by the need to survive in the given environment, that is, adaptive evolution, and at other times genetic drift comes about through change and spontaneous mutation. Humans must still be undergoing evolution, where evolution can be defined as "genetic drift." A healthy child is ideally produced from two genomes, one from each parent, different enough so that there is little error when the two sets of chromosomes combine into a zygote. However, even with the over six billion people currently inhabiting the earth, reproduction through unique genomes is becoming more uncommon because of intermarriage.?That is, exogenous marriage is bringing peoples together into just one generic people. The human race is essentially becoming one giant family, where all intercourse is really incest, the result of which is genetic mutation. This problem cannot even be solved by each people keeping to itself, because even what little genetic variation there is within the system is wiped-clean by intermarriage, resulting in genetic drift within the separated communities, so instead of the human race evolving all together, hypothetically there would be several different species, all traced back to the h o m o sapiens. Of course, all this would take a long time, so it's likely there would be technology developed to ameliorate the problem of convergent genome structures. As Cerebral Stasis said, the question of ethics comes in insofar as genetic engineering and whatnot, because genetic engineering is very scary business. Let's say that perhaps six million years go by, and still the human race hasn't degenerated into one giant inbred mob. This means that there was genetic mutation going on during those elapsed ten thousand years, because the genomes still remained different enough that reproduction could go on without really being incest. Humans are the product of many, many years of evolution, and they still evolve even now; it's just so slow it's nearly unnoticeable. As someone brought up, the human physical structure hasn't really changed since h o m o erectus, the first upright man (though there has been change in other facets of the physical condition, such as size), but this change is relatively recent. The next major change may not be due for a long time. One noticeable genetic change happening even now is size. Many of my peers (being around sixteen or seventeen) are all around 185 cm (~6 ft), but our parents and grandparents and great-grandparents, loss of bone mass aside, are significantly shorter. Even taking into account the drugs dumped into the milk, enriched foods, and healthier diets, the height discrepancy is great enough to be attributed to the very genes of the offspring.

Your question is asking what the nature of a human being would be if he were set aside from all things we know now, including the natural environment and other humans. I'm assuming that there would be a supply of water and food given to him at points throughout his life, so his lonely world wouldn't be cruelly ended, and the experiment given to an abrupt stop. Since our human is basically hand-fed everything he needs in his life, thinking would be only at a most basic level. He would have just enough intelligence to ingest food and drink. Anything above this most basic level is highly unlikely, since there is nothing to stimulate higher thought. An essential part of the human psyche is the interaction among other people. Since he is completely alone with himself, he will be missing whatever he may have developed socially. For instance, the attention given by a mother to her child gives that child a sense of self. The mother having been taken out of the equation, the baby will have no sense of self, not unlike most animals. The most obvious part to social interaction is language. Language is used entirely for communication?albeit it is implemented in art forms like poetry, but isn't poetry communication??that is not necessary without a society. You describe a condition of being "trapped in a box or lonely room," where our human will live in darkness. With no light, he will not even be able to see himself, and supposing there were light in whatever sort of prison he were to be kept, his mental facilities aren't exercised enough for him even to comprehend his own existence. Any higher portions of existentialism such as the "Why?" questions are far out of reach for him. As I said earlier, all thought will be on the most basic of levels; all the abstract and sophisticated flavours of thought aren't needed as far as this isolated human is concerned. In fact, the human really isn't concerned, because the world to him is but a dark box where food and drink occasionally appear. The human body adapts to its needs. For example, a person who lifts weights develops a system capable of supporting greater weight, and a person who frequently runs develops a system more apt to running. Such also is the mind.

Hydroelectric power is very clean insofar as pollution, but perhaps the miniature fans may cause damage to other creatures dwelling in the Cook Straight. That's the only detrimental ecological facet I can see to the fans. Not knowing how Wellington is powered currently, though, the fans may be a better alternative to whatever means of power there is; it's a matter of the lesser in two evils where environmentally safe electrical production is concerned.There is also the economical costs to consider. The fans and maintainence thereto may be costly, and therefore any plans for the new electical system may be timidly approached by those who make decisions about such things. If more funds are required, they'll come from the taxpayers. You're the taxpayer, and it's your own money, so I really have no say in what you do with it.Frankly, I have no real arguments to the fans. They sounds like an excellent idea, especially when juxtaposed with fossil fuels.

nehmanator333: Evolution is indeed a theory. It hasn't been proven decisively, though it has much evidence towards it (I myself believe in evolution, all the way). MTGaming: Theory no. 1 I'm not sure what you mean about humans having "it ... in the spot light." Perhaps you mean that because humans have been the dominant species on the planet for so long, that we shall collectively be dethroned, so to speak, to be replaced by some other species. If that's truly what you're saying, I don't agree. Firstly, there has to be another species capable of overpowering h o m o sapiens (pardon the spacing, but the filters are cruel and unusual). This species would obviously have to possess immense amounts of intelligence. As of right now, the most intelligent creatures on the planet, next to humans, are creatures such as dolphins, whales, and chimpanzees—none of which seem ambitious enough to claim dominion over the earth. If you're saying that humans are bound for deevolution, that is highly unlikely, regardless of species or situation. I agree with you on the point that humans may regress, but not deevolve, and only insofar as our physical stature. As you say in your second theory, humans have progressed in achievement and cognitive skills, so I think it's fairly safe to assume that the cerebral facet of human evolution will continue it's trend, don't you? Theory no. 2 I can't seem to find what the theoretical part of your statements is. It sounds like you're saying that humans are always evolving, and they are always evolving to higher ranks of intelligence.—Sounds pretty solid to me. Theory no. 3 The fundamental problem here is that dinosaurs weren't as powerful as humans. Dinosaurs were the dominant species because they were the best adapted to their environment, for evolution had been very kind to them. Humans are different in that if we were stripped of our societies and higher intelligence, we wouldn't survive in the wild nearly as well; we maintain any superiority through our technological and social sophistication. We aren't as well developed to our environment, and it's not our trend to adapt to the environment, rather, it's our trend to adapt the environment to ourselves. Right now there is global warming, the source of which is controversial. No matter what the source, chances are, at our current rate of technological advancement, that by the time that global warming would have been a serious problem, we'll have developed technology to counteract the effects, whether eliminating global warming altogether or devising new tools to survive on an ecologically unsound planet. As long as we continue to make advancements like we have been, our dominance is quite likely to continue.

Exactly. Homosexuality isn't a new trend at all. The only reason homosexuality seems more evident in modern society than it was, say, fifty years ago, is because the homosexual population feels (in countries like the United States) that society has become more liberal and accepting overall. We have to keep in mind that homosexuality was prevalent even in societies like Ancient Greece and Rome, and the population never shunned those people. It was entirely acceptable. Homophobia comes from the ancient Hebrew tradition of ensuring the survival of their people. The Israelites were a desert people on the brink of non-existence, and so to maintain their numbers, they outlawed homosexuality to promote more straight relationships and thus make sure there were enough children to continue their nation. A lot of laws such as this were protectionary, such as the Kosher laws, which inhibits contamination and disease through food. Some sects of religion that hold these ancient laws believe homosexuality is wrong, yet do not follow things like the Kosher laws, which are just as legitimate as the one for homosexuality. Can one pick and choose these laws, or should one be consistent? I think homosexuals are the new group for oppression, like those of African descent in the United States were a hundred years ago by the Jim Crow laws. Too many people use religion as an excuse, a justification for their fear of difference. Perhaps some straight males are afraid homosexuality in a population will corrupt their own masculinity.

"In your 'origin of religion', you state the "first humans". Since you mention evolution, without claiming what kind, i assume you mean macro-, so the first humans would have to be cave-men, or some form of ape that were tall enough, and looked somewhat human (like "big-foot" laugh.gif). If that's so, they are far too primitive to even be able to ask the question: "How did this all come about?" And if they are able to ask such a question, then it must mean they're not as primitive as we thought they are, cause they are capable of doing what we can, and cannot become extinct so easily. Meaning, we (modern humans) are the first humans." I never mentioned evolution. My "first humans" are the creatures who may have first been considered human, that is, capable of thought at a higher level than simply self-sustenance. Whereas evolution may have played a part in order for these creatures to exist, it is of very little concern to the matter at hand. Evolution is another topic, and one which you seem to be very keen on rebuking (many apologies if I'm mistaken, truefusion). At any rate, the first humans are very primitive. They certainly don't ask the question How?... but rather, they have a very simple and unsophisticated curiosity in what occurs around them. An early human child learns to walk, then perhaps the child sees a bird and tries to fly. However, the human learns he cannot fly, and that flying is something that's birds do and humans do not. The human also witnesses things like the rising and setting of the sun. Is the sun some sort of animal? What's with the light? What are those speckles of light when the sun goes away? These are the sorts of questions that the human asks. My statements show that the human very gradually progresses in understanding, from the point where he realises that he himself is not the source of these mysteries to the point where he realises that these things draw their natures from something completely outside humanity. It's not too far-fetched a concept, and something even a primitive creature would be able to do, especially one with a growing capability of logical deduction. "In response to: "a homologous society formed a unique and uniform code for activities," although, human hands did write this "code" down, it does not need to be written down in order for it to be followed. Since, some of these things are pre-installed in the mind, and some our parents teach us cause of their experiences with certain things." Of course, we both agree that the code does not have to be written down. Writing is still a relatively new development in human history. Oral tradition probably played a larger role in maintaining the social values and statutes. One has to be carefull with what is and isn't "pre-installed in the mind," since most of the mind?even the subconscious?is affected by the environment in which it was raised. The human brain is born with very few natural instincts, and everything else must be learned by various means. Any creature incapable of motor skills from the start certainly has no concept of higher morality or metaphysics until learned. "In your 'ideal nature of modern religion', i dont believe you answered your own question: 'Ideally, what ought to be the nature (perspective, application, or otherwise) of religion in the modern world?' Also, i dont believe you took every aspect, in order to answer your three questions. Such would have required a lot more work, and a lot more writing." Aha! I think it would be extremely difficult to compile all the aspects of something so complex as religion in one go. Especially on a forum. I certainly don't presume that I can write down everything in a few keyboard strokes. But hopefully you (and other readers) can see where there is an openness for where we can go with religion. Ultimately the last of my questions asks "What do you want to do with religion? Where should all this go?" The question is for you. What do you think?

I beg and plead, before proceeding, the reader to keep an open mind in thinking upon or posting anything here. Religion is obviously a strong force in the world, and it has been for a long time. However, I have three questions about religion, upon each of which I shall give my own answer, in hopes of hearing others: What is the origin of religion? What has been the use and purpose of religion? Ideally, what ought to be the nature (perspective, application, or otherwise) of religion in the modern world? The Origin of Religion The first humans on earth were very primitive, both in physical evolution and mental development. However, they observed the various phenomena around them, including both everyday events such as the rising and setting of the sun and natural disasters such as earthquakes. Being curious creatures, humans wondered what the source of these things was. The very first conclusion, a very important one, to which the human came was that he himself was not the cause of the mystery. Many years later, perhaps, when humans at last begin a sort of interdependency with each other, the human discovers that others are not the cause of the mystery. Naturally, then something else must have been the cause of mystery. The "cause of mystery" is called the Devine. It's not enough to say that simply believing in the devine, however, is religion. Religion includes many more things than simply believing that there is some force or being that is ultimately the cause of mystery. Humans began to give the Devine human characteristics, such as the idea that the gods were pleased by gifts. Sacrifices come from this belief, and eventually many other types of behaviour are associated with positive or negative feedback from the Devine. Obviously, in order to do what's best overall, a homologous society formed a unique and uniform code for activities. Past Uses and Purposes of Religion Society, having a clear (though not necessarily written) set of laws, has the basis for a system of rule. Religious statutes do not mandate a ruler per se, but there was probably the need for one or more overseers to regulate the proceedures of religious rite and ceremony. These early priests became the first governmental leaders. Let's analyse other uses of religion that didn't necessarily apply to early mankind. Throughout history there have been corrupt leaders who've used religion as either a tool of propaganda or a weapon to tame the masses in order to achieve their own ends. Two examples from American historyone earlier, one more recentto exemplify this. The social attitudes and philosophies of early North America in respect to the Natives are commonly referred to as ideas of "manifest destiny," the premise being that God having made America a prosperous affair thus far, it must be His will that we go ahead and do what is best for America, without reguard to anything else. Colonists brutally snatched-up Native American territories because of this dillusion. Apropos to contemporary times is the 9-11 attack on America. An organisation is able to command followers of fanatic loyalty primarily on account of religion. In either example, religion has been used to make the enemy lesser or to threaten those who won't obey those empowered. On a lighter, more positive note, religion also gives a form of social identity. The Romans, for instance, arguably did not believe in their own gods and goddesses. If anything, they were animists. However, the charade of polytheism gave them a wealth of sources for fine literature, culture, and hence social identity. Even when the religion was forced upon no one, its effects were certainly heavy upon the Roman Empire. Religion has commonly been a source of custom and folklore, both of which are treasures to any society. The Ideal Nature of Modern Religion The best use of religion in contemporary times expresses itself through the needs evident in the world. A world at war begs for peace, a growing gap between rich and poor asks for social justice, and nature in decline needs respect for the natural world. By these needs, it's apparent that what is important in a religion is not directly what the beliefs themselves are, but rather what the beliefs accomlish. I say directly because it is quite likely that the content of the beliefs holds a large amount of weight with what is accomplished. If I believe that the rich are benefited with their affluence from a devine source, I may be lacking in my social justice department. However, if I'm a pantheist, my respect for nature will be quite strong. What are your opinions, O ye of humility?

Is the man good based upon his intentions or based upon the ends of his actions?If the man intending to help his friend told the councillor with hopes of his friend kicking his habit in time, the man can be classified as good upon intentions. Even if the councillor turns around and jails the friend, the man had nothing to do with the councillor's decision. One could claim, however, that the man is indirectly responsible for the friend's incarceration. The man had only in mind to save his friend from drugs, so he is still good as far as his intentions.If being put in prison is the bad outcome of this (as I assume it is by the way it was presented) and the man is to be judged based upon the ends of his actions, then the man is not good. His ingenuity to tell the councillor about his friend ultimately led to that friend's imprisonment.As far as I'm concerned, the man with good intentions is good. It's entirely unfair to judge someone based upon the unpredictable results of their actions. In an extreme example, there is the Chaos Theory, wherein every action possibly brings about what would seem as an unrelated event. Therefore it's arguable that Hurrican Katrina, above all surrounding meteorological circumstances, was ultimately caused by the disagreeable fashion by which I brushed my teeth. Perhaps I'm a bad person, but surely not that bad. Not to say that people should not be held responsible for what they knowingly commit. There are actions that have obvious consequences to them, and any good men will keep these in mind.

Homeloansnow is correct in saying that religion is a personal experience. This means that one's view of the Devine can be completely different from another's, even when both parties are subject to monotheistic religions. The question to be answered is whether or not these discrepencies in views leads to seperate gods, or whether these seperate views mean that one is correct and another incorrect, or perhaps both are misled.If we really must decide upon the indentities of the gods as they apply to entire religions, then the religion should be treated as the individual, with the personal viewpoint being the dogmas and customs of that religion in light of the Devine. Say Christianity depicts a God of salvation; Islam depicts a God of strength in warfare. With two different perspectives evident, what is the conclusion? Different gods, or is one or both in misconception?

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all monotheistic. However, it is not enough to say that they all worship the same God strictly on the grounds that since they all believe there is one god, that the god must be the same God.?So how do we identify gods so as to be able to label them the same?We have the potential to classify the gods in accordance to by whom they were and are worshipped. For instance, the God of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims was claimed to have been worshipped by the one man Abraham. By this alone, it appears as if all three gods are the same God.The only other way of use I can see in this affair is classifying gods by outlook. If we were to assume that each of these religions knows their respective gods well enough that they are able to portray an accurate image of God, then an analysis of these views could by this theory reveal if they were indeed the same God. Judaism portrays a loving, but almost primarily warlike and law-giving God. Though specific views doubtlessly vary from sect to sect, the basis primarily remains the same. Christians have a loving God, pointing out that He gave His only son for them. Christians believe in a Trinity, that is, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?all of whom are united in one God as different persons. I'm very sorry to say that my knowledge on Islam is terribly limited, so I cannot speak as accurately for Islam as the other two monotheistic faiths. However, from what I have already ascertained (notwithstanding how little it is or how accurate), Islam paints also the picture of a slightly warlike God (recall the story of Mohammed) as well as law-giving. From this means of classification, it appears as if the Jewish and Muslim gods are more similar than the God of the Christians, especially in respect to their so-called Trinity.It all boils down to how you classify gods, in order to determine whether or not the Gods of the monotheistic religions are the same. Philosophy determines this matter, which is subjective and cannot be determined in absolute.

Having taken Greek, I know that anarchy literally means "without leader." Anarchy has no leader. Even if it were to have a leader, there is almost no chance that leader would be of such moral strain so as not to take control in addition to whatever guiding he or she may exert upon the nation. But, giving that one leader the benefit of the doubt, there is even smaller a chance that subsequent leaders would follow such a moral strain. Inevitably, someone is going to claim power, either out of ambition, seeking to do what is perceivably best for the country, or out of lost of power. Keep in mind that the nature of anarchy is complete freedom. With freedom comes people who will exercise such freedom; besides certain social maladies such as unfair distribution of wealth and pillaging (even if only temporary, as many claim), there will also be very little social consensus after awhile. Inevitably someone will see in their own eyes a better system of management, and it will be that person's endeavour to mould the nation to suit their political interest. All it takes is for one person to desire a governing entity and anarchy's over, because the anarchist system is one without a sovereign state, namely because it has no sovereignity. Therefore, if someone were to claim dominion over an anarchist state, there is no discrepancy as to whose domionion it is, seeing how there is no contest. In short, enough volition and a strong enough view of a government will end the weaker government. That is, this will be no different than even a native conquistador's "I claim this land in the name of Spain." The end. No more anarchy?there is a ruler who will doubtlessly aim at accomplishing his economic and political ideas either by force or by consent of the people. Anarchy is essentially a return to natural law?the state by which humanity was living before society came together and formed governments. Even anarchists admit this. But this in itself is an argument against anarchy. The natural law phase of humanity was brought to an end by society itself, accomplished through natural means. As long as humans are social creatures, there will be society and hence government.

The main point of my exemplum is that a governing entity is at this point in human history and development of society a necessary evil. It is entirely within human nature to develop of its own accord a government. Therefore, if an attempt were to be made to have a society without a government, we would quickly see its remanifestation.The revitalisation of the government does not even need to occur by means of a police force. Too easily it may come back through the robber barons mentioned in the exemplum. Even though the government has dissappeared, the people are still in need of goods and employ. In unregulated capitalism, as it has been shown through history, one corporation in each industry tends to get the upper hand and dominate in its particular field. Eventually the owners of their respective corporations may decide it is in their common interest to unite under a single conglomerate, in order to more effeciently manufacture and distribute goods. For all intents and purposes, this is also a government, since one of the primary functions of a government is to determine the means, object, and incidence of manufactures. And surely, even such a conglomerate will have the force of the law, since who would go against the will of the one and only means of production? This situation exists in several soi-disant communist countries, though the situations in each of them are slightly better than they had been. Obviously, none of them could have been nor can be classified as anarchist nations.

ANARCHY Anarchy is certainly an ideal. Such a state where none are governed or restricted seems to be utopian. However, there are several problems with it (keep in mind that I myself work towards a stateless society). Let us take the institution of anarchy, for example: The institution of anarchy is extremely difficult and improbable. Governments have the tendency to gain more and more power and have not the tendency to give any bit of it up. There are, however, instances where a government was forced to part with some of its power (such as the American Revolution, the signing of the Magna Carta, the French Revolution, etc), but these were nowhere near what one would need to institute true anarchy. And then there is a far more difficult problem to contend with: Let presume that there is a way to institute true anarchy, a coup d'etat in full, and the government has been dismantled. Now there is no ruler whatsoever, and the people are entirely free. Now, for everyone living in America, they know what happens when government regulation suddenly ceases; so many saw the events after hurricane Katrina. Many remaining citizens of New Orleans reverted to a sort of natural law where "look out for no. 1" is the only law. Some did so for justifiable reasons, such as the need for clean food and water. Others, however, were robbing stores of money and hauling off big screen televisions. Thus, we can assume that this will happen after the institution of anarchy. However, let's assume that this period will be only temporary. People will inevitably have to learn to coexist, or else they will all perish. Soon the era of violence and natural law comes to an end, and a sort of peace pervades the country. Now, everyone is perfectly fine for the time being. But as time wears on, there are needs of things. Crops must be sown and harvested, factories must be run, roads must be prepared, and so on. Obviously private business still exists (for only cockroaches and corporations can survive even a nuclear war), so they can take care of a few of these things. However, what is the means of wage? This is not a problem in a smaller society, for bartering is still a viable option, so life goes on. What if we don't have a small society??Let's say we want anarchy in the United States. So then what is the means of wage? Bartering only works on a small scale efficiently, so there has to be specie or other form of monetary note. The origin of these is evident in the United States: the Federal Reserve, which just so happens to be a private corporation of its own. Workers now have incentive to work, so those necessary things such as road repair can be done. A sense of rugged individualism develops among everyone, as it should, so that they can take matters primarily into their own hands when it comes to getting the essentials accomplished. Now we have wages, roads, and crops, and everything seems to be working. But what if a group of people isn't getting the resources they need? Pure capitalism without regulation is hard on the worker, and robber barons of sorts have arisen who pay their workers unjust dues. Inequitable distribution of income has upset these workers, and now they must resort to stealing as a means to maintain self-sustainance. They go in a pack to another neighbourhood, which is of better means, and rape/pillage everything there. Clearly this behaviour is unacceptable, so there has to be justice and retribution in some fashion. Rugged individualism would dictate that some citizens would bind together to form a "Justice Faction." The Justice Faction goes and deals retribution to these criminals, deterring others from committing the same crime and protecting every other individual. The Justice Faction realises they are good at what they do, and so an entrepreneur takes over and runs it. Money is really becoming an issue now. Not only is the distribution of income a major problem, but also there is inflation as well as missed opportunities to trade with non-anarchist countries. First, the growing chasm between the rich and poor is growing at an alarming rate, and something must be done. Riots are forming out in the streets, barely kept subdued by the Justice Faction, who are payed healthy sums of money by the newage robber barons. Realising they are no good split apart, the workers unionise and in one accord declare that they need better wages and conditions. The corporation then decides that it is in its own interest to comply with the union, so that it is not without workers. Second, Inflation is the fault of the Federal Reserve, which has no regulation. Rugged individualism again dictates that common citizens refuse to take any more of their dwindling wage and rising prices, so they decide to take action. A few influential individuals manage to worm their ways in to advising the Fed, or perhaps the Fed itself delegates a few members to an advisory board. Third, in order to trade with non-anarchist nations, envoys must serve as representatives to the foreign nations. As most international trade is conducted by transnational corporations, there is little need of government intervention in trade as it is now. Corporations fund their own envoys to represent them respectively to trade with foreign nations their exports to gain imports, which the corporations will then in turn resell to consumers at home. Everything is running smoothly now, which seems to be a good thing at first. However, the idea of a government-less state has whetted the appetite of some more imperialistic nation, which fully intends to invade the anarchy state. The first attack is launched, and everyone realises the danger almost immediately. The Justice Faction jumps to alert and begins to fight off the enemy. It becomes very evident, though, that the Justice Faction does not have the resources available to them to launch a counterattack. More funds and weapons are needed. The Fed, which is a monopoly on all banks, even in the Anarchist States of America, decides that it's in its best interest to donate funds to the Justice Faction, despite inflationary risks. However, the inevitable happens, and inflation goes through the roof, which doesn't even help the Justice Faction, because now the price of weapons has skyrocketed. In the interests of all, the Justice Faction and the Fed become one entity. Now no troublesome monetary transaction has to be made from the Fed to the J.F. to fight the war. But what is this? An entity that both regulates/serves the economy and dispenses of proper justice? This sounds an awful lot to me like a government. A government has arisen out of the anarchy! Human nature plays a role in government: Some argue that a government goes against human nature, which is ideally not to be governed and to do what mankind pleases. However, this world of governments is nature. What you see is what has developed naturally. Therefore, it is truly in mankind's nature for now to be governed. We have a long way to go for anarchy.

The death penalty should not be used. After all, what is the purpose of punishment? The way you answer that question inevitably dictates how you view the issue. For instance, if you view punishment as a sort of exacting revenge, then the death penalty achieves that revenge: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. However, my belief is that punishment has several different functions.1. RehabilitationIdeally, any punishment given to the criminal would reform that criminal to be reassimilated into society. In this case, punishment is penance and a time to reflect on the bad deed in order to fix oneself to to good. However, the death penalty is execution, where the criminal has absolutely no time for reformation, as they are dead.2. ProtectionIf society has no means of defending itself from criminals, then they must be done away with. It would not be to anyone's benefit to have rapists and murderers roaming free. This is a major reasons why there are prisons?we can isolate them so they are unable to harm anyone. The presence of these prisons, however, makes the death penalty obsolete in this facet in industrialised nations, where prisons are almost fulproof. Raving lunatics are not escaping from their prisons any time soon.3. DeterrenceThis is probably the only real argument the death penalty may have for existing in most places. Deterrence means that the punishment prevents others from performing the same crime. However, let me pose a question. If someone is in such a fit of rage that they would even consider taking another person's life, are they going to have the common sense to put their anger aside and consider the consequences? My answer is no. Furthermore, there are no statistics showing any correspondence between death penalty and lower murder rates.So from these three goals of punishment, execution holds no place in most modern societies. Whereas I can see capital punishment being a necessity in some environments such as third-world countries where unstable governments and prisons have the tendency to allow prisoners to escape, industrialised, modern nations have no justification for the death penalty apart from sheer bloodlust. The death penalty, in fact, isn't even instituted in most western countries; the largest practitioner is the United States (which also outranks in murders-per-capita just about every other western country).

Terrorists incite fear. However, what good is it if the government protects us against terrorism, that which causes terror, by means of an iron fist and cloak-and-dagger tactics, which strike fear in the hearts of that state's own people? Anti-terrorism may save lives, but what good is that when the country utilising anti-terrorism tactics is systematically arresting, interrogating, and torturing suspects (innocent or not)? Could it be possible that there will soon be two legions of terrorists?one abroad and one domestic? These are all questions that need to be answered in respect to the relationship between terrorism and anti-terrorism.I apologise for my seeming paranoia.Please do not think of me as bitter, but I would give my life in order to assure that this nation does not become an Orwellian police-state.

The Bible is a much larger document, Wild20. The Ten Commandments are good standards by means of following which one may not commit wrong. However, there is more wrong than in committing. These are called sins of ommission. Take for example, I am walking along an urban street, and a man, completely emaciated, beggs me for food. If I had plenty of money in my pocket but refused to give him anything, this is a sin. But what commandment says that I just sinned? None of them. I haven't done anything wrong, but it's what I did not do. However, if you wish to change from the Ten Commandments to the entire Bible, then this is a different matter. Because the Bible contains not only the Ten Commandments, but other statutes and stories with clear morals as well, it provides a much more thorough basis on moral decision making. Another order of business, Mohammed, the Islam Prophet, was originally Christian. Islam is based on Christianity, and therefore much of the Quran was originally Christian writing. The Ten Commandments are still there. Furthermore, you say "Jews are like us, they are the first people of God, but they do not believe in Jesus. This is where they have gone wrong. they only believe the first half of the Bible. Whereas we believe all of it. They keep the old law, that was nailed to the cross with Jesus. This was Moses' law. A set of ordinances." I dare ask what you would call the Ten Commandments. A "set of ordinances," perhaps? Certainly they were given by Moses. Wasn't your original argument that these were not "nailed to the cross with Jesus?" I would argue that the relevence of the Ten Commandments is still eminent. I am lost as to your argument, Wild20, that I would rely on monkeys and fish for moral guidance. Rather, I would rely on a number of sources to make moral decisions. My aforeposted list gives a few of the sources I could consult to make an earnest decision?including human judgment and nature. We cannot overlook this, no matter how imperfect it is. Even if I were to solely rely on devine inspiration for all my decisions, we cannot forget that it is I who will be acting upon this new guidance; I am human. Therefore, even devine inspiration will be subject to my human flaw. Nevertheless we cannot look upon human nature as evil, either. For Christians, has not God created humans and thus human nature? God made mankind and saw that it was good; mankind did make the mistake betraying God by eating of the Tree of Knowledge, but there is much good left in humanity, despite its flaws. "You are trying to basically conform to everyone. I don't think it is possible. One person may say, I believe that it is okay to just take a penny someone dropped, and otherws will say a hundred dollar bill. Neither of these people are going to like the Ten Commandments. But if you take that out, you then lose your whole moral structure. I find it dangerous and believe that if you are going to have a moral standard, you should make sure it will insure the safety of everyone, which is what the Ten commandments do."--- Excellent point. It is hardly rational to think that the entire world will conform to one way of being moral, much less one moral standard. Your analogy of the penny and hundred-dollar-bill demonstrate exactly how people have varying moral values. However, both of them could still believe they are obeying the Ten Commandments; what if they found that money? Since it's not directly stealing, they may view it as discovering the money, and finders keepers. Personally, that's a terrible and irresponsible thing to do, especially in regards to the hundred dollars. However, this shows that moral standards are liable to be interpreted differently. Your "moral structure," if I understand correctly, is a group of people (say, a faith or a religion) acting very coherently according to a moral standard. You are very apparently Christian, Wild20, so you and others like you will adhere vehemently to the Bible and the passages and laws contained within. Your moral structure is in no danger. However, if you try to classify all of, say, the United States as a moral structure, than yes?the moral structure is doomed to collapse. There are just far too many cultures and different religions in America in order to have one moral structure to which all can conform. And if safety is what you have in mind, then the Ten Commandments, as I have stated many times before, are perhaps amongst the perfect laws for preventing harm (though not necessarily doing good [sins of ommission]). If you are saying that humanity is extremely unlikely to conform to one moral standard, that people (wrongly or rightly) interpret moral standards, and that moral standards should be used for the general benefaction of humanity, then I would have to completely agree with you.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Terrorism and patriotism are matters of perspective (the movie V for Vendetta is a wonderful instance of how acts of terrorism and patriotism can be obscured). However, my main issue here isn't whether or not the war in Iraq is justified by means of the views on what is terrorism and what is patriotism, but rather what have become the implications of terrorism and patriotism. For instance, I would dare to say that many of the recent acts passed in the legislature have been acts of terrorism. The Patriot Act is a prime example of this (ironic, the word patriot in a bill I consider to be an act of terrorism), for it certainly strikes fear in me and surely in the hearts of any other person afeared for reverting into an Orwellian police-state.

AS TO WILD20: I never said anything about whether or not it was necessary to obey God. If you believe in God, then it follows that it is logical to obey Him. If you are not monotheistic, then it makes no sense. Here we are discussing the means to moral decision making, as I recall, so while God should be included in the discussion, it would be foolish to limit the debate to simply a monotheistic matter. And yes, the Bible does make it quite clear that sins of omission are indeed sins, particularly in the New Testament. However, little mention is made in the Old Testament, including the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments do not have anything whatsoever about doing good inclusively, just instruction not to do bad. The Ten Commandments are devine from the perspective of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims. They are the word of God and are infallible, as far as they are concerned. And if everyone in the world were of one of the aforementioned faiths, all anyone would need is the Ten Commandments and a conscience to follow them. Seeing as how this is not the case, the Ten Commandments are not a truly worldly source (whether you view this as a bad thing or not). I agree with you in that following human nature alone will lead to awry decisions. It takes more than human nature, mostly because human nature is dictated by society. It is extremely subjective. Therefore, it isn't even truly "human" nature. AS TO TRUEFUSION: Perhaps the human conscience I was referring to does not exactly match your definition of conscience. By your mention of the Holy Spirit, I presume that you have a very spiritual outlook on conscience. As for myself, I refer to conscience in almost a purely rational sense?the part of the mind that evaluates a situation to decide what courses of action have what ends, ultimate good or ultimate harm. Of course, according to my definition of conscience, the conscience is purely a human function and is therefore fallible. Again, your mention of conscience alludes to the Devine, so you speak of a more infallible sort of conscience. It sounds to me that your conscience may be classified almost as "prudent intuition" or "empathy," whereas mine may be something like "analysation of the ends to a situation." So far, then, we have the following methods of moral decision making: Objective law (such as Ten Commandments) "Human" nature (social standards) Analysing given situation to its ends Prudent intuition and empathy I do not mean to offend anyone by seemingly removing the idea of God from these concepts, but in order to show that moral decisions must be made by every member of every society, not just god-fearing ones, I feel that I must made the terms such that they can globally be related to. I try my best to keep the same idea, and they should be the same thing (Prudent intuition and empathy were the attributes I derived from your post, Truefusion, concerning at least your view of the Holy Spirit, so I hope my interpretation may be sufficient for our means).

The original matter of inquiry was what should serve as the basis of moral decision making, as I recall. It seems everyone has diverged in various directions on trying to attack the central issue, and in doing so I've found several different methods for making moral choices. The Ten Commandments Conscience Human nature Personally, I don't think any one of these can be used on its own. Depending on your faith, you may need all of them and perhaps more not even mentioned on the list. These are only the ones I've seen mentioned in the discussion, but there are doubtlessly many more. What you need to make moral decisions is just that, what you need. Therefore, the basis of moral decision making is ultimately objective. The Ten Commandments are a set of ten laws. These laws are intended to guide the character on a moral path to make the proper decisions, at least in light of the Ancient Hebrew tradition. However, these Ten Commandments have been assimilated into modern western society via Christianity and have provided the foundation for much of western culture. There are several problems with using the Ten Commandments as your sole guide to moral decision making; this does in no way mean that there are problems per se with the Ten Commandments themselves, but rather just in utilising them. One problem with using the Ten Commandments is that they're all stated in the negative... "Don't do this, don't do that, etc." What about sins of omission? Isn't it bad both to take food from a beggar and not to give food to him? Only one is specifically mentioned in the Ten Commandments?not stealing. Another shortcoming of using the Ten Commandments alone is the need for interpretation. Some situations are more clear than others when determining whether or not a certain course of action would violate a commandment. For instance, let's take the commandment "Do not kill." This has the obvious implication of "Do not murder in cold blood," but what about war? Does that qualify as killing? Many would answer "yes," and others "no." The conscience is the mental force that can logic out right from wrong, help from harm. Without conscience, one has to rely on being told what to think about every situation in order to make a moral choice. Therefore, conscience is a necessary factor in every moral choice. A conscience, however, derives its decisions based on help and harm; the problem is, what determines help and harm? The answer could be the thing previously discussed?the Ten Commandments?or it could be... Human nature. I refer to human nature as an internal, inveterate set of moral code in the human person. Some people may refer to this human nature as "common sense." For instance, someone argued that "Do not kill" is something written in human nature. To our culture, this is common sense, but what about the Ancient Mayan culture, where there were virgin sacrifices? In that culture, killing was perfectly acceptible. You may think this is against God, but as previously stated by someone else, you cannot be punished for something you have completely no knowledge about, specifically the Ten Commandments that state "Do not kill." So as far as the Mayans were concerned, "Do not kill" was not common sense, so human nature isn't really human, but strictly a social being; that is, it differs from society to society. Therefore human nature is only a decent basis of moral decision making as long as it's only used strictly within one culture (which is rarely the case in a globalised society like the modern western world). So in my opinion, moral decision making typically requires some sort of concrete moral standard (such as the Ten Commandments) in addition to conscience and human nature.

Girls do not seek out boyfriends for the sinful pleasure of breaking their hearts. That's not the feminine nature, that's the sociopathic tendency. Girls want love just as much as you do (assuming you both have the same outlook on love?if not, mutual "love" is hard to determine). The point here is, girls do not intend to become "the perfect pretenders." Rather, I have found that girls are more keen to open up to reveal their true personalities quicker than boys are. As far as she is concerned, she may believe that boys are truly "the perfect pretenders." It's all a matter of perspective.As for knowing what's on a girl's mind, it is often difficult for men to apprehend their thoughts precisely. Men and women can have very different though processes. The best one can do sometimes is to pay close attention to your girlfriend. Try to relate to them on as many levels as possible.Resolving whether or not you're loved by someone is not easily done. I, being obscenely analytic of everyone around me, compare how I interact with someone to how they interact with me. If we act similarly towards each other, chances are any emotions I have directed towards that person may also be shared by that person for me. Obviously, you can tell if she doesn't like you by whether or not she seems to be making a conscious effort to avoid you, or attempts at talking to her wind up with her giving laconic responses such as "Yeah" or "Ok." When there is mutual love, the both of you won't feel any sort of aversion to each other at all.

I've spent the greater part of my life doing nothing but wondering its purpose. Sometimes I conclude that the meaning of my life is to discover its meaning.Perhaps the answer to the meaning of life is so important because the answer will determine how one should act and do with one's life. Therefore there is no greater question than the meaning of life.Is there a meaning to life? Should we assume that our lives are a means to an end?

Good point. Homosexuality in itself cannot be wrong because it is solely based on the emotion of love; this love just happens to be a member of the same sex. No one could argue that emotions are wrongunfounded, perhaps, but never wrong. And since most have the consensus that emotional love is a good thing regardless of situation, love is not unfounded. Love is neither unfounded nor wrong. Those quoting the Bible should realise that the Bible doesn't even condemn homosexuality in itself. Rather, it condemns homosexual intercourse: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination." (Lv 19:22). There is no all-inclusive anti-homosexual statute in the Bible. If the Christian God did indeed create homosexuals, then there can be no argument that homosexuality is wrong. The only loophole is if He didn't create them, that many people made a conscious decision to be homosexual. However, many tests have proven that there is a physiological difference between straight and gaynot just psychological. Gay men respond the same way to masculine pheromones as do women. This is hardly something one can fake.

Now we've brought sin into the affair. Sin is a conscious offence to the doctrine of one's faith. For instance, many Christian sects hold that homosexual intercourse is morally wrong, so therefore having intercourse with a member of your one's own sex is a sin.But if I recall correctly, the original question of this thread was "Is homosexuality right or wrong?" And now I realise that there is an issue that needs to be settled before the question on homosexuality can be understood and answered fully. That question is "What determines right and wrong?"As Dragonfly cleverly stated, laws can't determine right and wrong in the larger picture, because the laws of many states contradict each other. Laws cannot determine objective right and wrong. For example, if I a teenager were to drink in France, there would be no offence?the legal drinking age is fourteen. In Ohio however, the legal drinking age is twenty-one, so a teenager drinking alcohol in Ohio is an infraction of the law. So what is right and wrong in respect to drinking ages? There is no right and wrong?it all applies to the local law. By similar logic, homosexuality cannot be said to be right or wrong as applied to national law.There are flaws in said logic, however?it depends on whether right and wrong is allowed to be determined locally, rather than globally and by objectivity. If said logic is unflawed, however, then we can also apply it to religion: if homosexuality is permissable in Buddhism but frowned upon in Christianity, the two views are contradictory, and therefore right and wrong cannot be objectively drawn from religion (this is why I question the logic?religion has always been a part of what is right and wrong).In short, what are we going to base right and wrong upon? From there, we can determine views on homosexuality as it applies to that point?these views will help us assemble a clearer picture on the righteousness of homosexuality.