If man is evolving, why is there still war?

[AV1611VET]

It was answered in the penultimate paragraph of my post, if you'd actually bother to read things.

This is what I'm going to conclude from all this spaghetti:

Scientism teaches that some of us are born with a natural attraction for the same gender, and that natural attraction can also be for infants and children.

The only difference is, infants and children are off-limits due to legislation.

Have I got this correct?

 

[Mediate]

This is what I'm going to conclude from all this spaghetti:

Scientism teaches that some of us are born with a natural attraction for the same gender, and that natural attraction can also be for infants and children.

The only difference is, infants and children are off-limits due to legislation.

Have I got this correct?

1. Conflation of terms. 2. Reductio ad absurdum.

1. The attraction is not ''natural'' in the sense that it's okay and normal as your sentence seems to imply, it is ''natural'' in the sense that it is a result of chemical signals in the brain. There's nothing ''normal'' about it, but the attraction isn't 'chosen', and I think that's the point I was making.

2. Children are ''off limits'' because children cannot consent. Whether the legislation is there to that effect or not, children, by their very mental faculties, cannot give consent. They are yoo toung, Too inexperienced. Irrelevant of legislation, pedarasty (having sex with children) is inherently abusive. If no legislation stopped paedophiles from having sex with kids, it would still be abusive. It's not about the law, though laws against pedarasty do exist. It's about innate compassion, non-violation of another human being. Having sex with children, who can't consent, who have not reached sexual or mental maturity, is morally wrong because they have not reached sexual or mental maturity, are not old enough to understand, are helpless, weaker than adults, and have not yet developed physically, mentally or sexually.

 

[[serious]]

For about the third time:

Are ... they ... the ... same ... chemicals?

You need to read more carefully:

The chemicals responsible for attraction, nomatter the sexual preference, are very much the same

 

[GrimKingGrim]

only read the OP so I'll respond to that.

Your understanding of evolution seems a bit weak. You drew a correlation between war and evolution. I don't see any. Please explain a bit more.

 

[AV1611VET]

only read the OP so I'll respond to that.

Your understanding of evolution seems a bit weak. You drew a correlation between war and evolution. I don't see any. Please explain a bit more.

I can't speak for the OP, but according to the book of James ...

James 4:1 From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?

The Bible says war stems from the sin that resides in our flesh.

Our flesh is part of our body, not our soul or spirit.

If evolution is beneficial mutation, why hasn't this part of our flesh been mutated out?

 

[dad]

only read the OP so I'll respond to that.

Your understanding of evolution seems a bit weak. You drew a correlation between war and evolution. I don't see any. Please explain a bit more.

They seem to attribute so much to evolution. If a bird does something they might say it evolved that behavior for various reasons to survive for example. Yet the behaviour that man is known for..war...does not seem to make sense in the evolutionary scheme. So where did it come from? The bible gives a better answer...sin.

 

[dad]

We know that homosexual people have biological mechanisms that make them attracted to the same sex. That this attraction goes against your biblical moral code does not falsify that the biological attraction is unchosen by the individual.

People who get a perverted appetite might have a desire for a lot of sweets. That might trigger a chemical reaction. People who give in to some sin in other words, might find that chemical reactions ensue. People who are demon possessed may have chemicals in their brain or some areas of their brains affected.. or whatnot also. That would not mean that the chemicals or area of the brain is responsible. Don't put the cart before the horse.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

They seem to attribute so much to evolution. If a bird does something they might say it evolved that behavior for various reasons to survive for example. Yet the behaviour that man is known for..war...does not seem to make sense in the evolutionary scheme.So where did it come from? The bible gives a better answer...sin.

I see what the you're problem is now. So you're confusing evolution of social structure with just plain mutation.

The social structure of humans is entirely conceptual and unique to humans. It was an evolved behavior because we as a species are poorly equipped to handle the wild (fragile skin, poor immune systems, no defensive mechanism, low offensive capability, the list goes on) we discovered early on thanks to our increased cognition that tools help along with strong social bonds. We're similar to ants in that regard that we established hierarchies in order to further our societies and survival.

And similar forms of that hierarchal structure today in the form of organized government and presidents etc. But a social structure evolves at the behest of the society that formed it. It doesn't just change we have to make it change. It's human made, and we have changed it alot since it's beginning.

But tribalism and war are certain constructs as well that are so rooted in our society. We have people who want to hurt society at large and conflict is usually the only way to subdue them. People who believe they can cut against the grain and want to establish a new system to aggressively replace a proven system are very dangerous and cause chaos amongst order.

The mutation you're seeking isn't natural and most likely coming. We as a collective world would have to all agree on not killing or harming but there will always be someone who lusts power and will buck the system. Boko Haram is the perfect example.

 

[dad]

I see what the you're problem is now. So you're confusing evolution of social structure with just plain mutation.

Mutation is not where the line is drawn commonly when talking of evolution. They probably envision something mutating to change the various behaviors.

The social structure of humans is entirely conceptual and unique to humans. It was an evolved behavior because we as a species are poorly equipped to handle the wild (fragile skin, poor immune systems, no defensive mechanism, low offensive capability, the list goes on) we discovered early on thanks to our increased cognition that tools help along with strong social bonds.

You now blame social everything on evolution, and blame me for noticing that you guys do that a lot? War is social, no?

We're similar to ants in that regard that we established hierarchies in order to further our societies and survival.

Hard to say whether spirits established some orders along the line also. By the way you think ants establish the order of the colonies? It seems that they march to the beat of a drum somewhere, somehow, that involves more than a few ants organizing things over a drink.

And similar forms of that hierarchal structure today in the form of organized government and presidents etc.

We do not know that much about what and who and how some presidents get where they are, or what agenda may be in play.

But a social structure evolves at the behest of the society that formed it.

Sometimes it seems it develops despite the behest of people in a society actually.

It doesn't just change we have to make it change. It's human made, and we have changed it alot since it's beginning.

Pollyanna dreaming. In many cases people probably need to change themselves to minimize the changes of society. There is a limit to what changes come from people, and in particular, the masses.

But tribalism and war are certain constructs as well that are so rooted in our society. We have people who want to hurt society at large and conflict is usually the only way to subdue them.

Hitler subdued a lot of folks as did Alexander, Obama, and others. The question arises who was doing harm to whom?

People who believe they can cut against the grain and want to establish a new system to aggressively replace a proven system are very dangerous and cause chaos amongst order.

People who conform to evil are a danger to others also.

The mutation you're seeking isn't natural and most likely coming. We as a collective world would have to all agree on not killing or harming but there will always be someone who lusts power and will buck the system. Boko Haram is the perfect example.

I do not think that people can agree to not sin, therefore not war. Poverty and war are here as a result of sin, and cannot be wished away or voted away.

In the days of Job, Satan inspired the Sabians to do stuff. Bad stuff. He still has a lot of sway in the lives of particularly vile men.

You see evolution is not to blame.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I do not read links. I look at your summation of something from a link. Not seeing anything. Why pretend you got something?

Obviously reading is a challenging activity for you.

I go by what God thinks. Not by what some bent school trustee wants to foist on kids

Says the person who had no sex education and consequently thinks the subject is dirty and shameful.

I said God chose. He made man a certain way, your bent ideas aside.
No. Once a bird has tasted flight, they wouldn't want to crawl around kissing a turtle butt.

Wow, are you ignorant.

Yes. I see the implication of a poster not comprehending nature and how God set things up.

More ignorance.

Some people get excited robbing folks. The test is not what a man can be aroused by, but what God says. Man lies and says whatever it takes to justify sin

Total ignorance mixed up with harmful nonsense. Your opinion really is worthless.

 

[TLK Valentine]

They seem to attribute so much to evolution. If a bird does something they might say it evolved that behavior for various reasons to survive for example.

Birds don't go to war, and if they did, we couldn't ask them why.

Yet the behaviour that man is known for..war...does not seem to make sense in the evolutionary scheme. So where did it come from? The bible gives a better answer...sin.

You're right, dad -- war doesn't make a lot of sense in the evolutionary scheme.

How many of those men throughout history, if asked, would've given "the Bible" as an answer why they did it?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Not if they know it's a sin.

Would you still find women sexually arousing if you were told it was a sin? Would you be able to stop your brain responding? Of course, I realise you are no longer a 17 year old with raging hormones, but you know what I mean.

 

[AV1611VET]

Would you still find women sexually arousing ...

I'm not Hugh Heffner.

2 Peter 2:3a And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you:

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I'm not Hugh Heffner.

2 Peter 2:3a And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you:

So if you were told it was a sin before you hit puberty, you would never afterwards have found women sexually attractive. Yes?

 

[AV1611VET]

So if it were told it was a sin before you hit puberty, you would never afterwards have found women sexually attractive. Yes?

Since I can't stand that word, I'm going to Arab phone it to "sensually".

And women are aesthetically pleasing.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Since I can't stand that word, I'm going to Arab phone it to "sensually".

OK, whatever, I'll not bother to comment on that.

And women are aesthetically pleasing.

You didn't answer the question. Paintings of water lilies are aesthetically pleasing. Let's rephrase it to make it plainer: Would the fact that it was considered sinful in any way have altered the physical feelings that women aroused in you as a young man.

 

[AV1611VET]

Would the fact that it was considered sinful in any way have altered the physical feelings that women aroused in you as a young man.

No.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

No.

And you agree that it is the same way for homosexuals? They are born that way and informing them that it is a sin will not change it one jot. Yes?

 

[AV1611VET]

And you agree that it is the same way for homosexuals?

Will you agree it is the same way for pedophiles?

The object of one's libido says a lot about that person.

It is, in my opinion, what gives that person his reputation; or defines his lifestyle, so to speak.

As the old saying goes:

1. sow a thought, reap a deed
2. sow a deed, reap a habit
3. sow a habit, reap a character
4. sow a character, reap a destiny

Children should, again in my opinion, be taught (by their parents) the story of Amnon & Tamar.

 

[AV1611VET]

youtube.com/watch?v=yHGV3PhEg5c