Was that the last Connery Bond flix?
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
- Thread starter MissThundercat
- Start date
- Status
Was that the last Connery Bond flix?
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
B&T are in Diamonds are Forever. The last Connery was the awful remake the names of both of which I have forgotten. Maybe Never Say Never Again?
Edit: Yes, NSNA, which is ghastly, is the remake of Thunderball, which was meh.
This explains how that abortion happened.
B&T are in Diamonds are Forever. The last Connery was the awful remake the names of both of which I have forgotten. Maybe Never Say Never Again?
Edit: Yes, NSNA, which is ghastly, is the remake of Thunderball, which was meh.
This explains how that abortion happened.
Last edited:
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
There's a long running pitched battle here by Christian apologists who like to attack "secular culture," whatever that is, as a slippery slope to a parade of horribles that includes forced sterilization by the government of political and racial undesirables (like, it is implied, Christian apologists). Bob Gray was the Founding Member but it looks like he is licensing franchises now.
It's one of those things like Chemtrails where people in the club are Very, Very Concerned, and everybody else just kind of nods politely and edges towards the door.
There's a long running pitched battle here by Christian apologists who like to attack "secular culture," whatever that is, as a slippery slope to a parade of horribles that includes forced sterilization by the government of political and racial undesirables (like, it is implied, Christian apologists). Bob Gray was the Founding Member but it looks like he is licensing franchises now.
It's one of those things like Chemtrails where people in the club are Very, Very Concerned, and everybody else just kind of nods politely and edges towards the door.
Last edited:
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
Put it here because it is an ethical question.
I know we have designer animals / plants. But engineering your kids? Maybe I'm so old that "Space Seed" and other Sci Fi regarding supermen still bothers me.
Is playing God with the human genome a good thing?
Put it here because it is an ethical question.
I know we have designer animals / plants. But engineering your kids? Maybe I'm so old that "Space Seed" and other Sci Fi regarding supermen still bothers me.
Is playing God with the human genome a good thing?
leswp1
Well-known member
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
Good question.
Another question- are we sure God has not given us this ability? I ask this question about many things. The Church [used in context of a formal church, not any one church] has a very schizoid view of medicine. Some developments are to be embraced- ie one should use all measures to avoid death, to not employ medicine to prolong life is a sin. On the other hand it decries things that may help or save people untold anguish or danger- abortion, blood products, use of other religious practices for meditation, use of crystals, herbs, certain other procedures to alter the body.
We apply our modern mindset to many of these things. In particular in Biblical times and until quite recently the definition of when a fetus was considered a second life has changed immensely. The most common definition was quickening (around 16-20 wks of pregnancy depending on whether it is your first or subsequent pregnancy)There were/are some cultures where the baby has/had to live past a certain time before they were considered to be viable (as in months!). There were/are times when to use medication was/is considered heretical and any sickness, illness was from God and only God should solve it.
Humans define 'gift from God' in so many different ways. Consider all the things that could be viewed differently- surgery, medication, transfusions, use of mechanical devices, abortion, psychiatry to name a few.
I sometimes wonder how religious leaders decide what they do. (the logical Unitarian in me has not been completely excised)
And now back to your regularly scheduled program....
Good question.
Another question- are we sure God has not given us this ability? I ask this question about many things. The Church [used in context of a formal church, not any one church] has a very schizoid view of medicine. Some developments are to be embraced- ie one should use all measures to avoid death, to not employ medicine to prolong life is a sin. On the other hand it decries things that may help or save people untold anguish or danger- abortion, blood products, use of other religious practices for meditation, use of crystals, herbs, certain other procedures to alter the body.
We apply our modern mindset to many of these things. In particular in Biblical times and until quite recently the definition of when a fetus was considered a second life has changed immensely. The most common definition was quickening (around 16-20 wks of pregnancy depending on whether it is your first or subsequent pregnancy)There were/are some cultures where the baby has/had to live past a certain time before they were considered to be viable (as in months!). There were/are times when to use medication was/is considered heretical and any sickness, illness was from God and only God should solve it.
Humans define 'gift from God' in so many different ways. Consider all the things that could be viewed differently- surgery, medication, transfusions, use of mechanical devices, abortion, psychiatry to name a few.
I sometimes wonder how religious leaders decide what they do. (the logical Unitarian in me has not been completely excised)
And now back to your regularly scheduled program....
Last edited:
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
I guess I just view it as outside of the realm of relevancy for Christianity. Not every question is an ethics question and not every ethics question is a religious question. For me, asking 'should mankind change the color of an offspring's eyes to blue?' is similar to 'should mankind move at 200 MPH?' In Christianity, God really didn't build mankind out of the box to do either and has explicitly said we should not do either exactly zero times. If somehow one believes we're playing God in one of the situations, one should believe we're playing God in both. And in both cases, that person is waay overestimating mankind's capabilities. So I don't see it being relevant to the Christian side of the topic whereas I see 'should mankind needlessly injure mankind' as a core question in both ethics and religion.
Not thread policing you...its just an observation.
I guess I just view it as outside of the realm of relevancy for Christianity. Not every question is an ethics question and not every ethics question is a religious question. For me, asking 'should mankind change the color of an offspring's eyes to blue?' is similar to 'should mankind move at 200 MPH?' In Christianity, God really didn't build mankind out of the box to do either and has explicitly said we should not do either exactly zero times. If somehow one believes we're playing God in one of the situations, one should believe we're playing God in both. And in both cases, that person is waay overestimating mankind's capabilities. So I don't see it being relevant to the Christian side of the topic whereas I see 'should mankind needlessly injure mankind' as a core question in both ethics and religion.
Not thread policing you...its just an observation.
leswp1
Well-known member
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
Also- I would not under-estimate human kind'd ability to do just about anything medically. The things that I was taught were unpossible when I was in school have been possible and in some cases have become obsolete. When you enter nursing school now they tell you a great deal of what you learn as cutting edge will be obsolete by the time you graduate. There are already fertility techniques that are giving ethicists fits.
Why? There are a number of religious leaders who have come out with opinions on this now and over history. Also there are those that argue this is a harm to humanity.
Also- I would not under-estimate human kind'd ability to do just about anything medically. The things that I was taught were unpossible when I was in school have been possible and in some cases have become obsolete. When you enter nursing school now they tell you a great deal of what you learn as cutting edge will be obsolete by the time you graduate. There are already fertility techniques that are giving ethicists fits.
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
Opinion
First, religious leaders saying something doesn't mean anything. Historically, some televangelists have asked for money without much relevancy for Christianity. Regardless, Christ did not saying thing about it...and for Christians, that needs to be black and white.
Second, the problem with the proposal made here is that these sort of procedures are not a bad deal across the board...and therefore, this is not a question of banning an entire class of medical activities but rather one of policing specific outcomes. And I don't buy that these are generally a bad deal. If we can fix birth defects (no Down's syndrome), aren't those some really positive outcomes...and I would have a feeling that there are far more of those types of positive outcomes in the offing than negative medical outcomes. The important aspect is to police negative outcomes. Sounds like Golden Rule stuff to me.
Opinion
First, religious leaders saying something doesn't mean anything. Historically, some televangelists have asked for money without much relevancy for Christianity. Regardless, Christ did not saying thing about it...and for Christians, that needs to be black and white.
Second, the problem with the proposal made here is that these sort of procedures are not a bad deal across the board...and therefore, this is not a question of banning an entire class of medical activities but rather one of policing specific outcomes. And I don't buy that these are generally a bad deal. If we can fix birth defects (no Down's syndrome), aren't those some really positive outcomes...and I would have a feeling that there are far more of those types of positive outcomes in the offing than negative medical outcomes. The important aspect is to police negative outcomes. Sounds like Golden Rule stuff to me.
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
Exit the paranoia chamber and your request may be viewed more favorably!
Taking it hard that your franchise request was denied yet again?
Exit the paranoia chamber and your request may be viewed more favorably!
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
Wow. You're like Candyman.
My franchise is the Megyn Kelly Mouseketeers (sp?).
Taking it hard that your franchise request was denied yet again?
Exit the paranoia chamber and your request may be viewed more favorably!
Wow. You're like Candyman.
My franchise is the Megyn Kelly Mouseketeers (sp?).
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
I assume this is something that in a hundred years will be completely normal and fully integrated into people's moral universe, but which now, at least to people like you and me, seems like a REALLY REALLY BAD IDEA.
I suspect the first generation without severe genetic disabilities will say, "yeah... about that."
Our generation, or our kids, will probably be the last tribe that thinks this particular photography steals your soul.
Dr. Mrs. and I were talking about something similar this weekend. At some point everybody will probably just walk around with a couple (or a fleet of) little nano-drones that will be able to zoom off in any direction to do errands, take photos, whatever. I think this is ghastly, but my grandkids will think it's as obvious as a cell phone (which I also think is ghastly). The first generation of people who got telephones faced an older generation who reacted violently against the idea that they should answer a ringer from someone who didn't have the manners to come over to talk. My great grandmother's reaction to the first phone installed in her house was, "we are all each other's servants, now."
I would have really liked my great grandmother.
I assume this is something that in a hundred years will be completely normal and fully integrated into people's moral universe, but which now, at least to people like you and me, seems like a REALLY REALLY BAD IDEA.
I suspect the first generation without severe genetic disabilities will say, "yeah... about that."
Our generation, or our kids, will probably be the last tribe that thinks this particular photography steals your soul.
Dr. Mrs. and I were talking about something similar this weekend. At some point everybody will probably just walk around with a couple (or a fleet of) little nano-drones that will be able to zoom off in any direction to do errands, take photos, whatever. I think this is ghastly, but my grandkids will think it's as obvious as a cell phone (which I also think is ghastly). The first generation of people who got telephones faced an older generation who reacted violently against the idea that they should answer a ringer from someone who didn't have the manners to come over to talk. My great grandmother's reaction to the first phone installed in her house was, "we are all each other's servants, now."
I would have really liked my great grandmother.
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
Perhaps. However, I don't think one has to be religious to find the idea of "designer babies" rather creepy, nor to point out some of the obvious dilemmas of being able to choose exactly what traits you want in your kid, while preventing any "undesirable" ones from being expressed.
Perhaps. However, I don't think one has to be religious to find the idea of "designer babies" rather creepy, nor to point out some of the obvious dilemmas of being able to choose exactly what traits you want in your kid, while preventing any "undesirable" ones from being expressed.
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
What was that crappy horror movie from around 1998 or so, from the guy who made Dawson's Creek and starred Katie Holmes? Basically, it was something like The Stepford Wives except for teenage children. Almost all of the kids are these perfect, precious little things until their new neighbors arrive into town and then clichéd stuff happens. That's what comes to my mind when I think of these handcrafted kids - and I'm not talking hand jobs and turkey basters here, folks.
ETA: Found it, Disturbing Behavior.
What was that crappy horror movie from around 1998 or so, from the guy who made Dawson's Creek and starred Katie Holmes? Basically, it was something like The Stepford Wives except for teenage children. Almost all of the kids are these perfect, precious little things until their new neighbors arrive into town and then clichéd stuff happens. That's what comes to my mind when I think of these handcrafted kids - and I'm not talking hand jobs and turkey basters here, folks.
ETA: Found it, Disturbing Behavior.
leswp1
Well-known member
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
Would designer kids arrest further development, inovation, etc as we had a cookie cutter version of what is considered de rigeur at the time? Something to ponder.
Think of all the people who were 'less than perfect' in their world but now viewed as genius now. Galileao was a heretic for one/ Heard a theory recently that reasoned there were more autistic people as the way their brain works is a much better fit for the modern world. Very compelling.
Would designer kids arrest further development, inovation, etc as we had a cookie cutter version of what is considered de rigeur at the time? Something to ponder.
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance
Think about the pressure parents would put onto "designer" kids. I can imagine it now as I've seen how parents act at hockey rinks while Junior's on the ice and he's clearly not getting the amount of ice time the Next Gretzky so richly deserves. Parents would spend a lot of time and money investing into the design of their children, and if those children weren't performing, then there will be severe consequences. Parents already do this with their kids in sports, now you'll just extend that effect to the rest of their lives too. It's a bad idea from start to finish.
- Status