Chindie Posted October 22, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted October 22, 2012 I was watching a show earlier, called Prehistoric Autopsy. It had Alice Roberts in it so I had to watch it, because she's curiously lovely. Anywho, it's a show shoddily thrown together about reconstructing the species in the human family tree, beginning with the Neanderthals. Nothing too ground breaking was revealed, but Alice Roberts was strangely hot as usual and the shoddy nature of it all was fun. It had one piece of info that stood out to me. I'd known that there is some debate over where the Neanderthals went, and I knew there was some evidence to say our direct ancestors, the humans that first arrived in Europe for any white people reading this, had in some part interbred with them out of existance. I was taken by the revelation that it's been discovered we share up to 4-5% of our DNA with Neanderthals. You could have more Neanderthal DNA than you have direct DNA from a distant relative, a great great great great great great grandparent for instance. Thats crazy. With that in mind... I'd be dying to hear a Bible nut explain that one with reference what the word of god says. I had a good old laugh at 'Leviathans and behemoths are clearly dinosaurs', so I can only assume stuff like 'Thou shalt not lie with beasts' is the almighty's disapproving chastisement at getting off with cavemen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Alice Roberts is lovely, no question. Too lovely even to justify entertaining "thoughts" about her. Well, almost, anyway. On the subject of lying with beasts, I wonder if anyone has followed the story of the religious Aussie MP who says allowing gay marriage will lead to bestiality: http://www.guardian....iage-bestiality "An Australian senator has resigned from the opposition's frontbench team after he provoked outrage by comparing gay marriage to bestiality. Cory Bernardi also warned that allowing same-sex unions could lead to calls to legalise polygamy, during a debate in the senate on Tuesday. "The next step, quite frankly, is having three people or four people that love each other being able to enter into a permanent union endorsed by society – or any other type of relationship," he said. "There are even some creepy people out there … [who] say it is OK to have consensual sexual relations between humans and animals. "Will that be a future step? In the future, will we say: 'These two creatures love each other, and maybe they should be able to be joined in a union'? I think that these things are the next step." In a subsequent radio interview, he stood by his comments, telling ABC: "We've already had complaints from those in the polyamorous community about [how] this will discriminate against them." Bernardi stood down as the parliamentary secretary of the opposition leader, Tony Abbott, after criticism of his comments from across the political spectrum. The centre-right coalition of which Abbott's Liberal party is part opposes gay marriage, but Abbott said of Bernardi's remarks: "They are views that I don't share. They are views that many people will find repugnant." He said Bernardi had offered his resignation during a forthright discussion. Labor and the Greens had called on Abbott to sack the senator, who has attracted controversy in the past for his views on multiculturalism, asylum seekers and climate change. In 2010, Bernardi called for the burqa to be banned in public, and last year he said, in a radio interview: "Islam itself is the problem." Abbott criticised those comments. After Bernardi's remarks about gay marriage, the opposition leader said he had "swiftly concluded that was one mistake too many". In his resignation statement, Bernardi said he was standing down from the shadow front bench "in the interests of the coalition". He did not apologise for his remarks. Bernardi boarded a flight to London on Wednesday morning to attend the European Young Conservative Freedom Summit, the Australian newspaper reported." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted October 23, 2012 Administrator Share Posted October 23, 2012 Is it possible to believe in karma but not believe in God? Are they linked or not. Please elaborate on any answer(s) to the question. Please define karma and god so that we have a starting point for discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 23, 2012 Moderator Share Posted October 23, 2012 Karma = shit that happens God = Shit that didn't happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Is it possible to believe in karma but not believe in God? Are they linked or not. Please elaborate on any answer(s) to the question. I'm going to speculate that you're hoping someone you dislike gets their comeuppance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Karma = shit that happens God = Shit that didn't happen perfect. just simply perfect. I'll have to steal that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted October 23, 2012 Author VT Supporter Share Posted October 23, 2012 My stance on marriage is that it can be defined as anything the people involved want it to be. Obviously I regard the religious aspect of it as tosh, but if people want to do that, fine. If they want it as mutual legal protection over property, access to any offspring, etc., fine. If they just want an excuse for a party with their friends, fine. Just make it clear at the outset. And I don't see any problem with it being man/woman, man/man, woman/woman, or combinations greater than two. The "consenting adults" rule applies. That is all. FFS, why do people get so arsey about all this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted October 23, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted October 23, 2012 Marriage is simply a contract. Theres no reason why there should be a limitation on a contract made between consenting adults that stipulates that, in some scenarios, they be treated as a single entity in law. What else they want to bring to that contract is their business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 I was taken by the revelation that it's been discovered we share up to 4-5% of our DNA with Neanderthals. So was I; having read some of the misinformation and uneducated drivel in this thread I'd have thought it much higher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted October 23, 2012 Author VT Supporter Share Posted October 23, 2012 So was I; having read some of the misinformation and uneducated drivel in this thread I'd have thought it much higher Really? Didn't think many believers posted in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Really? Didn't think many believers posted in it. I'm not referring to any particular group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Prefer Madras to Karma, personally, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted October 23, 2012 Author VT Supporter Share Posted October 23, 2012 Oh, let's run it out one more time... MY KARMA HAS RUN OVER YOUR DOGMA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 My stance on marriage is that it can be defined as anything the people involved want it to be. Obviously I regard the religious aspect of it as tosh, but if people want to do that, fine. If they want it as mutual legal protection over property, access to any offspring, etc., fine. If they just want an excuse for a party with their friends, fine. Just make it clear at the outset. And I don't see any problem with it being man/woman, man/man, woman/woman, or combinations greater than two. The "consenting adults" rule applies. That is all. FFS, why do people get so arsey about all this? I'm going to have a go at this - because for some people, marriage is about romantic love, and having marriage redefined as a "consensual" relationship would erase the romantic nature of it and thus cheapen it. (I'm aware that historically, marriages were not usually about romantic love) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted October 23, 2012 Administrator Share Posted October 23, 2012 I was taken by the revelation that it's been discovered we share up to 4-5% of our DNA with Neanderthals. Modern man shares 99.7% of DNA with Neanderthals. They are so close the Neanderthals are often named as a sub-species of Homo Sapiens rather than a separate species in the Homo genus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Practices such as prenuptials have already cheapened it, if you are looking at marriage as romantic. For most, marriage is security. I don't see how changing who can get married changes this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted October 23, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted October 23, 2012 Modern man shares 99.7% of DNA with Neanderthals. They are so close the Neanderthals are often named as a sub-species of Homo Sapiens rather than a separate species in the Homo genus. I've perhaps made an error in explaining what I mean. Of course we share great amounts of DNA with many things (to the point that we're remarkably similar to things as vastly different as chimps and bananas), the point I was making that, looking at the genome of an individual from Europe, upto 5% would directly be from Neanderthal interbreeding - basically a small amount of you could well be from the fact down your genetic line, there's a Neanderthal great to the power of whatever granddad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humanoid Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Is it possible to believe in karma but not believe in God? Are they linked or not. Please elaborate on any answer(s) to the question. Karma as in the Buddhist philosophy would simply be "cause & effect". The idea is that the mind's perception is the cause of experience. Whilst this can be seen evidently in a case of illness, i.e. stress causes health problems, it is more difficult to perceive that one's state of mind can effect an outcome involving other people. Buddha's teaching states that ultimately the whole world reflects your own state of mind, and to release yourself from a world considered to be a place of pain and death, you must let go of any and all cravings and desires for the world (in other words you let go of all the desires for your false perception's effects). This suggests that karma is a "catch 22" situation, hence it being symbolised as a wheel. Reversal of thinking is considered in Buddhism to be mechanism by which you release yourself from the karmic cycle and reawaken enlightenment. This idea mirrors that of "In the world, but not of it" and "be transformed by renewing your mind" of the Christian philosophy. The following video is food for thought on the afforementioned..... It'd be better to be enlightened to get your answer about God lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Prefer Madras to Karma, personally, I'm always partial to a chicken tarka ... It's like a tikka but otter . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted October 23, 2012 Author VT Supporter Share Posted October 23, 2012 I'm going to have a go at this - because for some people, marriage is about romantic love, and having marriage redefined as a "consensual" relationship would erase the romantic nature of it and thus cheapen it. (I'm aware that historically, marriages were not usually about romantic love) Don't see a problem. For your "some people" it's about romantic love, fine. That's THEIR perception, and good luck to them. How can what other people say, think and do, in any way "erase" or "cheapen" their own belief. Fragile lot, aren't they? I'm married, and yes, it was for emotional reasons. But if other people want to marry their two best friends and draw up a prenup about who gets the record collection, I'm all for it. Reference to gods is entirely optional. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts