F
fix
Guest
Hating liver is not a moral issue. Same sex marriage is a moral issue.
- Status
W
wittgenstein
Guest
Ummm refer back to posts 10 and 13.
Please keep up!
Please keep up!
F
fix
Guest
I addressed those.
A
Adamski
Guest
The show I watched wasn’t about the rights of the robot but the rights of the thousands of men to have what ever partner they wanted (robot)
On a side note to the Unitarian things I love that I won’t be marrying include my dog, my grandfather, heli-skiing, and king crab legs
On a side note to the Unitarian things I love that I won’t be marrying include my dog, my grandfather, heli-skiing, and king crab legs
F
fix
Guest
No reason robots must denied rights.
O
Ophelia23
Guest
I also love my cat, my dryer machine, my oven and my newly stained front porch. I would never argue the need to marry these things either.
Although I do like the idea of the King Crab legs…
E
edwest2
Guest
Great idea.
I’m all not for it.This falls into the stupidest, stupid stupid category.
Peace,
Ed
W
wittgenstein
Guest
Response to post 23
Obviously you are not taking this thread serioisly. Good idea. All I said was that love requires consciousness and you responded by saying"what does love got to do with it "[marriage ].
OK, loving a member of the same gender is the same as loving an inanimate object. Whatever, I already said that I am not taking a pro or con position regarding gay marriage (post 13, 10 ) only that the “reasoning” in this thread is juvenile.
Obviously you are not taking this thread serioisly. Good idea. All I said was that love requires consciousness and you responded by saying"what does love got to do with it "[marriage ].
OK, loving a member of the same gender is the same as loving an inanimate object. Whatever, I already said that I am not taking a pro or con position regarding gay marriage (post 13, 10 ) only that the “reasoning” in this thread is juvenile.
F
fix
Guest
If love is as loosely defined as you claim here then I see know reason if one claims to love a robot they should be denied such a belief.
W
wittgenstein
Guest
Because robots are not conscious. Romantic love is not the same as love for an object. My love for my wife is different then my love for my car. I am surprised that I have to explain something so obvious and have to do so over and over! Romantic love (or if you prefer spiritual love) requires that both participants be conscious.
One can argue that any conscious enity does not necessarily have the ability to experience true love with any other conscious enity. I agree with that. However, to be stuck at the lowest level of understanding (where one cannot tell the difference netween love for someone and love for a thing) shows an astonishing lack of spiritual common sense.
Perhaps,you did not realize that when one says "whatever " it means that one is being sarcastic? If you had actually kept up with my posts,you would have realized that I have made the point that consciousness is required for there to be love. I made that point over and over. The fact that I had to make that point over and over is very surprising, considering that it is fairly obvious.
One can argue that any conscious enity does not necessarily have the ability to experience true love with any other conscious enity. I agree with that. However, to be stuck at the lowest level of understanding (where one cannot tell the difference netween love for someone and love for a thing) shows an astonishing lack of spiritual common sense.
Perhaps,you did not realize that when one says "whatever " it means that one is being sarcastic? If you had actually kept up with my posts,you would have realized that I have made the point that consciousness is required for there to be love. I made that point over and over. The fact that I had to make that point over and over is very surprising, considering that it is fairly obvious.
W
wittgenstein
Guest
That is why I believe that talk of heaven (reward) and hell (punishment) is anti-spiritual. It reduces God to an object, whose use is our own advancement. If my wife told me that she loved me because I am wealthy, I would not feel loved. I would merely be a tool (object) whose purpose is similar to my car’s (to faciltate the satisfaction of wants and desires).
I think talk of heaven and hell is a misunderstanding of the Bible’s message. It reduces scripture to the level of Skinnerian psychology. Christ was not a Skinnerian!
Google, “B.F. Skinner.”
I think talk of heaven and hell is a misunderstanding of the Bible’s message. It reduces scripture to the level of Skinnerian psychology. Christ was not a Skinnerian!
Google, “B.F. Skinner.”
F
fix
Guest
That is your definition of love. Others do not agree.
F
fix
Guest
If that is your understanding than the Gospel is a lie.
W
wittgenstein
Guest
No. Your understanding of scripture is wildly inaccurate. Jesus was not a Skinnerian.
Also, so because I believe that love requires consciousness,my understanding of love is invalid??!!!
Also, so because I believe that love requires consciousness,my understanding of love is invalid??!!!
F
fix
Guest
I did not say He was, you did. The Gospel speaks about heaven and hell. That is not psychology but eternal truth.
If two men can claim romantic love simply because they are conscious then your definition of love is too limiting.Also, so because I believe that love requires consciousness,my understanding of love is invalid??!!!
A
Adamski
Guest
The key words in the above belief system is “I belive”. Catholism is historically accurate and doesn’t change with the Winds of society
A
Adamski
Guest
Can the Unitarian please give us early Christian writings that back up thier belief system
W
wittgenstein
Guest
Good grief! I’m actually being asked to prove that Christ was not a Skinnerian!! Skinner believed that morals are based on reward and punishment. Scripture is based on a less mechanical explanation of morality. There is a difference between a mechanical (object) understanding of God and a spiritual understanding. God doesnt want us to be robots.
W
wittgenstein
Guest
Response to post 35. (second statement you made)
Please read my posts before posting. In particular post 32, where you quoted me, accurately, but did not understand what was in front of your face. In particular start reading from," One can argue that any conscious enity…"
Whats the point in debating when all you do is misrepresent my position and then attack the straw men that you created?
Please read my posts before posting. In particular post 32, where you quoted me, accurately, but did not understand what was in front of your face. In particular start reading from," One can argue that any conscious enity…"
Whats the point in debating when all you do is misrepresent my position and then attack the straw men that you created?
W
wittgenstein
Guest
Response to post 35, your first statement.
You are confused. If there is,or is not a heaven and hell has NOTHING to do with what we are talking about. However,using threats (of hell) and rewards (heaven) is Skinnerian psychology. Jesus was not a Skinnerian. His message was not, do good,believe in God or he will torture you.
You are confused. If there is,or is not a heaven and hell has NOTHING to do with what we are talking about. However,using threats (of hell) and rewards (heaven) is Skinnerian psychology. Jesus was not a Skinnerian. His message was not, do good,believe in God or he will torture you.
- Status