First of all, homosexuals BIOLOGICALLY cannot conceive children through an act of HOMOSEXUALITY.

A gay man can gay man can have children by having HETEROSEXUAL intercourse with a woman. A lesbian may conceive by in-vitro fertilization or having heterosexual intercourse, but 2 women cannot conceive biologically. Homosexuals can have children by adoption, where that is legal.

The bible does say say homosexuality is a sin, but so are a number of other things. The NT states Jesus came for sinners. So if gays are sinners, according to the standards of the 10 commandments, they have plenty of company. :) In the OT, the chosen people are often sinning, then punished, then forgiven, always chosen, always loved by God. King David is a prime example.

It is wrong for bible believers to single out one sin, a sin they may not have trouble with, an ignore their own sins. What do you think of such things as, turn the other cheek, or love your enemies: these things are in the bible.




G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

First of all, homosexuals BIOLOGICALLY cannot conceive children through an act of HOMOSEXUALITY.

A gay man can gay man can have children by having HETEROSEXUAL intercourse with a woman. A lesbian may conceive by in-vitro fertilization or having heterosexual intercourse, but 2 women cannot conceive biologically. Homosexuals can have children by adoption, where that is legal.

The bible does say say homosexuality is a sin, but so are a number of other things. The NT states Jesus came for sinners. So if gays are sinners, according to the standards of the 10 commandments, they have plenty of company. :) In the OT, the chosen people are often sinning, then punished, then forgiven, always chosen, always loved by God. King David is a prime example.

It is wrong for bible believers to single out one sin, a sin they may not have trouble with, an ignore their own sins. What do you think of such things as, turn the other cheek, or love your enemies: these things are in the bible.




G&P

---

You said: First of all, homosexuals BIOLOGICALLY cannot conceive children through an act of HOMOSEXUALITY.

Okay. So what? Is that all sex is for, baby-making? That's not the way any heteros I ever ran into approached it. In fact, most heteros I know go to great extremes to be able to have sex without the baby-making part or risk thereof. So, what is all of that suppose to mean? Are they sinners because of that, are they committing an abomination as a result? (I think the Catholic Church use to say that--maybe still does). Dumb argument, hypocritical point of view. A banal comment.


Homosexuality is not a sin, it's a state of being. Calling it a sin is like saying it's a sin to have dark skin, or be of African ancestry. It's about as stupid as that.

Homosexual sex is a choice, being black is not.
Adultery or fornication is a choice, also sins.
Get it?


G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

I find one major flaw to your argument.

The people who are becoming more accepting of China, despite its oppression of its people, are those on the left... the very people who claim to be most against "wealth accumulation" and most in favor of "economic equality". The people most interested in seeing us in open negotiation with China are those on the Left of the political spectrum... the same people who are in favor of redistribution of wealth and who most decry "corporatism" and "capitalism" and "economic power". I certainly don't know any Conservative Right-Wingers who are accepting of China, and it is the Conservative Right-Wingers (like myself) who are the biggest proponents of capitalism, corporate freedom, and wealth accumulation.

If the same people who are "anti-capitalist" are the ones most accepting of China and its oppressive regime, wouldn't that argue AGAINST your point that reason we are more accepting of China is because of its wealth and economic power?

Elliot

---

You will not change attitudes in China by aggressively opposing them, it is only when you have dialogue that you can negotiate change. I have been to China, it is like any other place, keep on the right side of the law and no one will bother you. You and your right wingers would foster a picture of people being beaten up in the streets and coerced by the police. I saw no indications of that despite extensive travel, nor are they anti-capitalist, but just as eager as you to make money through commerce. What I did see is a number of people who might live at a lower standard, but then who is to say we must all live in tidy suburbs with two cars in the garage. It may take them another century for all citizens to enjoy a high standard but it is on their agenda and they don't have the need for political posturing to slow them down so prevalent in the west.

It is hard lesson to learn that not all people have the same aspirations as you do to wealth and that wealth alone cannot see your point of view prevail, so do more to deal with poverty and disadvantage in your own land and then you might have the right to speak to the Chinese but by then they may be giving you lessons in human rights..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Homosexual sex is a choice, being black is not.
Adultery or fornication is a choice, also sins.
Get it?


G&P

---

Heterosexual sex is a choice too. So what's the point? Being gay is a sexual orientation, like being straight. It's a state of being. The point is you have no point. You're expressing bigotry and prejudice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Homosexual sex is a choice, being black is not.
Adultery or fornication is a choice, also sins.
Get it?


G&P

---

Homosexuals rarely feel that their sexual orientation is a choice. If it is not a choice for them and a sin to you, then it is exactly the same as being born black. Homosexual sex is a choice. Bigotry is a choice. Being judgemental is a choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simoneaugie

Homosexuals rarely feel that their sexual orientation is a choice. If it is not a choice for them and a sin to you, then it is exactly the same as being born black. Homosexual sex is a choice. Bigotry is a choice. Being judgemental is a choice.

---

I think that was well-said. My sexual orientation (homosexual) was no choice for me. Not only that, it is probably the most defining character feature I possess as it is for every gay person, just the same way as being heterosexual is a defining feature of those who are straight. In other words, if I were not gay I'd be a completely different individual (and I don't wish to be different by the way). To call that nature "sin" is to make a direct and very personal attack on me and what makes me me. So in that sense it very much is like an attack on a person because of their color.

Quote:

---

Homosexuality is not a sin, it's a state of being. Calling it a sin is like saying it's a sin to have dark skin, or be of African ancestry. It's about as stupid as that."...


Heterosexual sex is a choice too. So what's the point? Being gay is a sexual orientation, like being straight. It's a state of being. The point is you have no point. You're expressing bigotry and prejudice....


I think that was well-said. My sexual orientation (homosexual) was no choice for me. Not only that, it is probably the most defining character feature I possess as it is for every gay person, just the same way as being heterosexual is a defining feature of those who are straight. In other words, if I were not gay I'd be a completely different individual (and I don't wish to be different by the way). To call that nature "sin" is to make a direct and very personal attack on me and what makes me me. So in that sense it very much is like an attack on a person because of their color

---

Cadillac,

So is sex, heterosexual or homosexual, an orientation? A choice?
a "state of being?" Is someone's skin color, race really, an orientation, a choice, or a "state of being?" BTW, I never equated skin color to sin or not, you made that analogy. I never stated being a particular skin color was a sin or not. Am I being bigoted or prejudiced? I did state that some heterosexual "choices" like fornication and adultery are sins also. I bet you would call me a sinner if I were to have a sexual orientation, or choose to have sex with someone other than my significant other.

So you speak for all people in stating that their sexual orientation is their "most defining character feature." Hmmm, when I pass someone on the street, I don't even know their sexual orientation 99% of the time. I do notice characteristics such as height, weight, gender, race, hair color, what they are wearing, facial expression, but... sexual orientation? I don't care.




G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

You're expressing bigotry and prejudice.

---

Ahh... yes, the great argument of anybody who has no other argument. If we disagree with you, we must be bigots. And it's all G-d's fault.

Either homosexuality is a "life choice" or it is "genetic".

If it's genetic, then the idea of homosexual manogamous marriage will breed that genetic factor out of the family... because the monogamous homosexual couple will either adopt (wherein there will be no genetic connection between parents and child) or they will produce a child OUTSIDE the marriage, which means that the marriage isn't monogamous. So either the monogamy of heterosexual marriage dies or the genetic factor that produces homosexuality dies within that family.

If monogamy dies, THAT is a threat to traditional family values, whether you choose to accept that fact or not. Monogamy is the basis of the traditional family. Without monogamy, the family breaks down. Just take a look at the incidence of divorce among cheating spouses... and even the divorce rates among "open marriages". Which comes back to my original argument to you... the threat of the end of monogamy was a direct threat to Israelite culture and Israelite family life. You ask how homosexuality could possibly be a threat to the Israelites. THAT is how... through the end of monogamy and tranditional family life, which was the basis of the entire tribal culture of Israel of that time. EVERYTHING was family based... a tribe is just a large family, after all... and homosexuality was a threat to the family system on which the entire culture was based.

If a different choice is made, and monogamy is maintained, there can be no next generation from a gay couple, genetically speaking. The genes die with that generation. If the genetic factor dies... well, that doesn't bode well for the continuance of that genetic factor for future generations, does it?

If instead homosexuality is a life choice, if there is no genetic component, then it isn't a "state of being", it's a choice like any other. A decision. And you can decide differently if you so desire. That's up to you. But if you are making a choice, then there are going to be people who disagree with that choice. They are not going to change their opinions for you. They are not going to be willing to change laws for you. It isn't bigotry, it's human nature. Just deal with it like an adult. And stop blaming G-d for YOUR decisions.

From a purely sociological perspective, there are only two purposes for sex... to produce children and to create a bond between parents so that they can raise and nurture the children together. The entire purpose of ANY sexual relationship, from the point of view of any sociologist, is the production and raising of children to perpetuate the speceis. There is no other purpose. If a homosexual relationship cannot produce a child, then from a sociological perspective, it serves no purpose. You can have all sorts of reasons to want to have homosexual sex... everything from "love" to "sport" to "entertainment"... but it serves no purpose to the perpetuation of the human race. That is a fact that cannot be argued. It is scientific fact.

Now... if you want to argue that there are other reasons for homosexual relationships... fine. Go ahead. Knock yourself out. I'll even agree with some of them. My brother is very in love with his partner, and they have a great relationship. His partner is a great guy too and I like him a lot. But if the goal of a sexual relationship is perpetuation of the species, they aren't contributing toward that goal.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

You will not change attitudes in China by aggressively opposing them, it is only when you have dialogue that you can negotiate change.

---

Clete, I'm not going to argue that point right now. How to handle China is a discussion for another thread, and one that I think is worthy of great debate. But not in this thread.

The point I was making was simply that in a place where the judeo-christian RELIGIOUS systems do not exist, neither does the judeo-christian MORAL system. China was one modern example. The Soviet Union was another.

Do you disagree with that point?

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

Not only that, it is probably the most defining character feature I possess as it is for every gay person, just the same way as being heterosexual is a defining feature of those who are straight.

---

I have never met a heterosexual person for whom sexual orientation was "the most defining character feature" that he or she possessed. For that matter, I don't even think it is the most defining character feature of every gay person I have met. It certainly is NOT my brother's most defining charater trait... and he happens to be rather active in gay issues, having started an organization dealing with gay issues. But he doesn't wear it on his sleeve.

If being gay is your most defining character trait, that is probably because YOU have made it so.

I am a banker, a father, a husband, a martial arts student, a cantor/singer, a heterosexual, an Orthodox Jew, the son/grandson of Holocaust survivors, short, fat, a political Conservative, a New Yorker, a student of history, a comic book and science fiction fan, with really small feet.

Which of those is my "most defining" character trait?

All of them? None of them? Something else entirely?

Answer: Whichever one I stress at the moment is the "most defining trait" at that moment. And a whole bunch of stuff I didn't list. I define myself. And I constantly change that definition to fit my needs of the moment. ALL of those traits are me.

My brother is a doctor, smart as a whip, athletic, angry, sad, caring, a dog-lover, a good friend, charitable, a gay man, a singer, well-liked and well-loved, respected, respectful, funny, witty, bald as a cue-ball, a great student and an even better teacher, loves to shop, a great cook, and he sometimes drives me crazy.

Which of those is his most defining character trait?

Answer: Whichever one he chooses to stress at the moment is the most defining trait.

You define yourself PRIMARILY as gay, or so you have said. That's your choice. Nobody defined you that way. I'd be willing to bet that 99% of the people you speak to in your life won't even KNOW you are gay unless you go out of your way to tell them. They didn't DEFINE YOU. You defined yourself that way. If that's what's most important to you, fine. If that's how you see yourself, fine.

But it seems kind of boring to only have one "defining" character trait. I think you need to diversify how you define yourself and what you think your "most defining character traits" are. If only to get some variety in your life.

Complex people don't have one "most defining trait". That's what makes them complex, wonderful, and interesting.

You said that if you weren't gay, you'd be a completely different person than you are. And that is likely true.

But that is true of ANY character trait. If I weren't a singer and a cantor, I would be a completely different person, because music and prayer are where I find my spiritual connection. If I weren't a martial arts student or a student of military history, I would be a completely different person, because my perspectives would be different.

And yet, although these character traits are important to me and help shape me, they are NOT how I define myself, except in certain circumstances. I define myself... and that definition changes with circumstance. I choose who I am.

You can too. As often as you want.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

I have never met a heterosexual person for whom sexual orientation was "the most defining character feature" that he or she possessed. For that matter, I don't even think it is the most defining character feature of every gay person I have met. It certainly is NOT my brother's most defining charater trait... and he happens to be rather active in gay issues, having started an organization dealing with gay issues. But he doesn't wear it on his sleeve.

If being gay is your most defining character trait, that is probably because YOU have made it so.

I am a banker, a father, a husband, a martial arts student, a cantor/singer, a heterosexual, an Orthodox Jew, the son/grandson of Holocaust survivors, short, fat, a political Conservative, a New Yorker, a student of history, a comic book and science fiction fan, with really small feet.

Which of those is my "most defining" character trait?

All of them? None of them? Something else entirely?

Answer: Whichever one I stress at the moment is the "most defining trait" at that moment. And a whole bunch of stuff I didn't list. I define myself. And I constantly change that definition to fit my needs of the moment. ALL of those traits are me.

My brother is a doctor, smart as a whip, athletic, angry, sad, caring, a dog-lover, a good friend, charitable, a gay man, a singer, well-liked and well-loved, respected, respectful, funny, witty, bald as a cue-ball, a great student and an even better teacher, loves to shop, a great cook, and he sometimes drives me crazy.

Which of those is his most defining character trait?

Answer: Whichever one he chooses to stress at the moment is the most defining trait.

You define yourself PRIMARILY as gay, or so you have said. That's your choice. Nobody defined you that way. I'd be willing to bet that 99% of the people you speak to in your life won't even KNOW you are gay unless you go out of your way to tell them. They didn't DEFINE YOU. You defined yourself that way. If that's what's most important to you, fine. If that's how you see yourself, fine.

But it seems kinda boring to only have one "defining" character trait. I think you need to diversify how you define yourself and what you think your "most defining character traits" are. If only to get some variety in your life.

Complex people don't have one "most defining trait". That's what makes them complex, wonderful, and interesting.

You said that if you weren't gay, you'd be a completely different person than you are. And that is likely true.

But that is true of ANY character trait. If I weren't a singer and a cantor, I would be a completely different person, because music and prayer are where I find my spiritual connection. If I weren't a martial arts student or a student of military history, I would be a completely different person, because my perspectives would be different.

And yet, although these character traits are important to me and help shape me, they are NOT how I define myself, except in certain circumstances. I define myself... and that definition changes with circumstance. I choose who I am.

You can too. As often as you want.

Elliot

---

First, I'd like to thank you for that interesting and fairly detailed description of who you are and for the description of your brother. You both sound like talented and interesting people. Second, and something I am also grateful for, is the tenor of your post: you don't impress me as a rabidly homophobic individual--you're what I might (and respectfully) describe as heterosexist. By that I mean you seem to be one who sees heterosexuals as holding and entitled to hold a dominant role and place in society, one who thinks that society should center on heterosexual relationships, and one who sees heterosexuality as being an intregal part of this culture. You appear willing to tolerate gay people, as long as they stay out of the limelight, and are discreet about their lifestyles. Perhaps the fact that your brother is gay has helped shape your views. The problem with this way of thinking is it places gay people in a 2nd class status, and that is what I am fighting.

When I said that I thought being gay was my most defining character trait, what I meant was it is very foundational in making me who I am. Everything else flows from it in a sense. Everything else is built on it such that, were I straight instead, I would be a completely different person. This is not how most heteros view gay people. The bigoted ones look at homosexuality as a kind of bad habit--something like being an adulterer, cheating on a spouse. A person can change a habit of infidelity, can reform that aspect of his character, but being gay is very different. You don't change that. That part of you is too wrapped up in and integrated in your entire being.

Of course I can describe myself in other terms: lawyer, athletic, gym-rat and fitness buff (as shallow as it may sound that's beause I am a bit overly wrapped up in how I look), Lutheran (formally I suppose since I stopped going to church and have given up on any god-concept), not bald (thank god!). But these are all things that are changeable. Maybe that's the distinction: things that are changeable vs. those that are not that make up you you are. Gay= not changeable. Lutheran=changeable (can become an atheist; I left the church because I got mad at them for not taking a formal stand in favor of same-sex marriage in California at the end of last year even though they recently voted to allow gay and lesbian pastors to serve who are in committed same sex relationships, which is certainly a step in the right direction). If I went down your list most of the things you listed about yourself or your brother were in the changeble category.

You mentioned that you are Jewish (orthodox I think you said). But that's changeable too, more in one sense than in the ethnic, cultural sense. Fortunately I've noticed far less homophobia amongst Jewish people, which I applaud and I think that says a lot about the cultural and ethnic heritage with which you identify (at least I know this is true of the reform branch, you'll have to help inform me if this is correct amongst those on the more conservative side of your faith). Israel, as an example, itself is a very gay-friendly country as reflected in its laws and social policies.

Anyway, I hope I've explained the point I was making. By the way you were right in saying probably 90+% of people think I'm straight when they meet me. But again, that was not exactly what I was thinking of.

Thanks again, Elliot, for your comments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

not bald (thank god!).

---

Thank who? Hmmmmmm.

Quote:

---

Thanks again, Elliot, for your comments.

---

My pleasure. And a pleasure to open a CIVIL dialogue rather than one based in anger.

Hope we can do it again some time.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Thank who? Hmmmmmm.



My pleasure. And a pleasure to open a CIVIL dialogue rather than one based in anger.

Hope we can do it again some time.

Elliot

---

I think I'm more disposed to respectful civil dialogue than angry exchanges. Perhaps I've got some issues with religion I need to work through.

When I first left the church I told myself I wasn't ready to throw god out the window completely; however, then I began listening to Christopher Hitchens, whom I adore as well as reading Bertrand Russell once again, another favorite of mine, and then I became more inclined to leave god behind. I'll have to see how things progress. If I return to having religious feelings I'm sure they will again find expression in a church like my former Lutheran church (the most liberal of the liberal I suppose). We had gays and lesbians attending and taking communion, and the pastor, although straight and married, seemed okay with people of all sexual orientations. So maybe there's a place for me somewhere. I'll have to give it some thought.

All the best.

Here are some quotations pertinet to the OP as applied specifically to the national morality of the US, in supposition that the US must have morality in order to survive.

Abraham Lincoln said, "I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord's side."

Founding Father Dr. Jedidiah Morse wrote:

"Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all the blessings which flow from them, must fall with them."

Engraved on the Jefferson Memorial in Washington D.C. are these words of Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and our third president:
" God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."

George Washington wrote: "We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself have ordained."

George mason, The father of the Bill of Rights, speaking at the Constitutional Convention declared: "As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, so they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

Here are some quotations pertinet to the OP as applied specifically to the national morality of the US, in supposition that the US must have morality in order to survive.

Abraham Lincoln said, "I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord's side."

Founding Father Dr. Jedidiah Morse wrote:

"Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all the blessings which flow from them, must fall with them."

Engraved on the Jefferson Memorial in Washington D.C. are these words of Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and our third president:
" God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."

George Washington wrote: "We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself have ordained."

George mason, The father of the Bill of Rights, speaking at the Constitutional Convention declared: "As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, so they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities."

---

None of those quotes has any mention whatsoever of Christianity. None.

Take what Jefferson said. Completely consistent with a deist point of view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

Take what Jefferson said. Completely consistant with a deist point of view.

---

I disagree with this statement.

If Jefferson believes that G-d is "just" and maintains that justice, then he believes in an entity that MUST be involved on a daily basis within this universe. Such an entity cannot be "removed" as Deists believe, but must be constantly hands-on, balancing the scales of justice.

Thus the statement of Jefferson, that G-d is a "just" entity that maintains justice in the world is in direct opposition to Deist belief.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

I think I'm more disposed to respectful civil dialogue than angry exchanges. Perhaps I've got some issues with religion I need to work through.

When I first left the church I told myself I wasn't ready to throw god out the window completely; however, then I began listening to Christopher Hitchens, whom I adore as well as reading Bertrand Russell once again, another favorite of mine, and then I became more inclined to leave god behind. I'll have to see how things progress. If I return to having religious feelings I'm sure they will again find expression in a church like my former Lutheran church (the most liberal of the liberal I suppose). We had gays and lesbians attending and taking communion, and the pastor, although straight and married, seemed okay with people of all sexual orientations. So maybe there's a place for me somewhere. I'll have to give it some thought.

All the best.

---

Cadillac - I hope you don't mind me eavesdropping on the civil discourse between you and Elliott. I think what he was getting at was the reference you made to God in your previous post, when you said "thank god I'm not bald." You may leave your religious traditions behind because you feel they no longer suit you but you still have some thought of God left in your mind, why else would you think to thank him? I suppose one could argue that it's when we are caught off guard that we have many things to say about God. What is all the more interesting is how we think to thank him for things as simple as hair.

Just my two cents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jakester

cadillac - I hope you don't mind me eavesdropping on the civil discourse between you and Elliott. I think what he was getting at was the reference you made to God in your previous post, when you said "thank god I'm not bald." You may leave your religious traditions behind because you feel they no longer suit you but you still have some thought of God left in your mind, why else would you think to thank him? I suppose one could argue that it's when we are caught off guard that we have many things to say about God. What is all the more interesting is how we think to thank him for things as simple as hair.

Just my two cents.

---

To say "thank god" for something is not to make a religious statement or make a freudian slip about some possible subliminal belief in god. It's only an use of language, an expression that has found use in communicating an idea. It's a form of emphasis in speech.

Don't read more into it than is there.

Quote:

---

Where does this morality come from? How does each of us have it? Or lack it, for lack of or dysfunction in part of the brain. Is a personal morality , this relativity or subjectivity really just a nice term for selfishness or narcissisism? If so, then Nietzsche's nihilism is justified.

---

Where does emotion come from? How do we have it? Or lack it? What is WILL? It seems to me obvious that rational thought is secondary to emotion. I witness an act, I am emotionally moved, I rationilize, and then digest. What is GOOD!? Where does emotion move you! At what point does an act become wrong?!

The point at which an act becomes "wrong", is the point at which it distresses me. It is wrong for no other reason. This is narcissism? That I should decide what is "GOOD"? Has anyone ever done any different? Perhaps acted AGAINST their own will? If anyone has ever done anything, it is because THEY WILLED IT DONE! Where then is "Morality"?

Religion has served man well. However, THIS God is dead. I would not be so disposed as to leave this world to "humanist" understanding, which is of course nothing. They claim nothing, aim at nothing, yet expect us to consider them as something. I have a soft spot for Russell, he was a genius, let us not be ungrateful to him. Wittgenstein utterly destroyed Russell's metaphysical arguments, and if anyone would like to invoke "Russell's Teapot", I would be quite happy to destroy that argument. PLEASE INVOKE IT! It would make for more discourse.

Schopenhauer looked at life in the Christian sense, even though he was an atheist. He reminds me of Russell in some ways, brilliant, yet lacking in HUMAN sense, that is to say, ANIMAL sense. He turns his back on life, all life ends in sacrifice, as on the cross. One is reminded of the book of Eccelisiaties, perhaps the greatest book of all time, as it deals with TRUE humanity, what it is to be HUMAN!

Those that decry the Judaic religions, those "humanists", that decry the notion of sancity, of holding something dear, forget what it is to LIVE! YES! WE HAVE EVOLVED! Of this there can be no dispute! What meaning do you humanists give? NONE!! You are nothing, you aim at nothing, you will become nothing.