please explain the etymology of straight?
“conventional,” especially “heterosexual,” 1941, probably in part from straight and narrow path “course of conventional morality and law-abiding behavior,” which is based on a misreading of Matt. vii.14 (where the gate is actually strait), and the other influence seems to be from strait-laced.
how come heterosexual connected with strait? please explain..
The use of the word “straight” for a male or female hetrosexual, is derived from the antonym “bent” as in homosexuals are bent, they were referred to as bent, or benders, as in wrong doers, anything ilicit in the 1940`s was referred to as bent..”I got this Morris Oxford off a guy in Dartford, `course its bent, but I got it for half a pony”..That Geezer down the pub, Eees as bent as a nine bob note” Being homosexual was ilegal in the UK until the mid 60`s, when a bill in Parliament was passed, to make it legal..as the old joke goes.Harold Wilson says to Ted Heath…”What do you think we should do with this homosexual bill”..Ted Heath says..”Pay it ” !
Philosophy Article About Reason Within Universities Dying?
That is a link to the article. If someone, ANYONE, could please explain what the hell its talking about, I will be forever grateful. I WILL BEST ANSWER YOU. Just someone help. I’m supposed to summarize it but don’t even know what its getting at.
Also, could you please share your opinions on the question, “Can you be moral without the presence of God?”. I am just interested in what others think or have to say.
Well, for the past 10-20 years there has been a sort of rebirth of christian thought in the academic realm in the UK and the U.S. Good clip on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-YuB-yz7jk
now, as for your second question, can people be moral without God? The short answer is yes, people can be moral without God. Human being are essentially social beings, and social beings live according to rules and/or laws. The real question is relating to moral ontology. Can a person hold an objective morality without God. This answer is no, the only sufficient grounds for an objective morality is a objective personal being. God by definition is an absolute, and also a personal being. Now, objective morals are grounded in “ought” statements. Ought statements are grounded in an objective purpose and you can only get an objective purpose through the commands of a absolute personal being. So, to conclude, in the absence of God, morals simply become a illusion of the human experience.
Why do laws against homosexuality in certain countries still exist despite other countries practice equality?
Because the people that make the laws each have thier own morality. There are many countries ruled by dictators and as such what they say goes. It’s also true that a lot of laws are based on religious values (many of the liberal countries have laws based on religion – eg UK on Christianity. Many religions prohibit homosexuality, so do the laws.
Besides, homosexuality was illegal in lots of countries until very recently.
is there any moral rules that have no common sphere with legal rule?
The original descriptive definition of “morality” refers to the most important code of conduct put forward by a society and accepted by the members of that society, the important ones have laws to back them up.
Being polite and considerate to others could be considered moral rules, in the UK queueing is a moral rule, yet there are no laws to enforce these, they are all rules most parents teach their children.
I suppose historically these sort of rules come from the Bible, Luke 6:31, Do to others as you would have them do to you. They are the sort of rules which make everyday life dealing with others better.
UK polls say 40% of muslims want sharia law in the UK?
32% of muslims think “Western society is decadent and immoral and that muslims should seek to bring it to an end.”
What do you think about that?
And the other 60% are lying because they don’t trust the pollster.
Sharia Law is a nightmare to any freedom loving people, and it is PROFOUNDLY important to recognize Islams proclivity to radicalize.
BUT…. We must also be aware that Western Society DOES suffer from a destitution of the soul. As Christianity becomes more social club than inspiring faith, as Eco Marxism teaches our children they are plagues to the planet, as Hollywood sells superficiality & sex as the point of existence….
In our scientific arrogance we have forgotten WHY Religion evolved in the first place.
Like the idiot Marxists at war with the Capitalistic engine of prosperity, so ‘Enlightened’ scientific Liberalism is at war with the Religious engine of human hope.
Religion evolved to keep our head in Darwin’s game. Muslims are breeding & out for blood. The West is not. As we shed the benign morality of Christendom, we create a ‘vacuum’ in the human spirit. And into that vacuum flows a nasty intolerant bit of human oppression called Islam.
Our path to ‘Enlightenment’ has excluded the understanding that humans need a REASON to win Darwin’s game. We NEED the rah rah against the Existential crisis.
Marxism is our internal enemy, Islam our external one. They are currently united against Christianity & Capitalism. Marxism destroying both our desire for success/superiority & undermining the moral & existential armor of Religion.
If this unholy alliance succeeds, then the Marxists & Muslims will turn on each other.
And the Marxist will lose because they are literally at war with human nature & prosperity.
Our path to a successful tolerant society lies in what we must NOT tolerate.
We must NOT tolerate Marxism or it’s cousin Liberalism.
We must NOT tolerate Islam.
And we must create a Religion for our Atheists.
We must put an enlightened form of Darwin’s fire into our children or find ourselves enslaved to a Medieval manifestation of it.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers