religion and hybrids

I have no more imput. You talking in circles makes me dizzy.

Originally Posted by Kokopelli

I am failing to understand the point of the debate.

According to the written word, and the older approach- religion shuns hybrids. My point is that you have to understand what is meant by the term hybrid by that religion to know what it is shunning.

The various alterations and mutations that some of the different religious translations took do not adhere to the written word anyway... so what's the point you're trying to make here? [COLOR="rgb(153, 50, 204)"]Agreed, there are many authors of the bible and many translations, different bibles versions, different sects, denominations, etc. There is much disagreement otherwise we would have just one bible and one christian religion with zero different denominations.[/color]

So according to one such approach, one -could- make the statements you made- all of which are untested, unproven, and are far, FAR from having a decent scientific basis. [COLOR="rgb(153, 50, 204)"]Again, agreed. My point here is to show that religious viewpoints are not based on science, but do indeed reflect in how we behave or treat subjects such as hybrids.[/color]

So... I think that it's like trying to eat the cake and keep it whole... shaping the meaning of the text to fit one own's views... to the point which it pretty much counters the original verse.
[COLOR="rgb(153, 50, 204)"]Your missing the point, the point is to show how it is all subjective. Religions differ, opinions differ, etc. But, we do often times make decisions based on how we interpret our personal religious books, secular teachings, etc.
[/color]
Just say you disagree with the concept and be done with it... your argument is opinion-based and cannot possibly resolve this discussion.

[COLOR="rgb(153, 50, 204)"]That would indeed be easy to say I disagree or agree.... but I am agreeing here that religion can indeed influence whether we perceive hybrids as being good, bad, or neutral. I am also attempting to see deeper into how I personally rationalize these matters as well as to see how others rationalize these matters. If one does not want to engage in such, easy enough. Leave the topic alone. If however one does wish to engage.... fire away. I would however like it if personal attacks, demeaning remarks, or.... attention deficit style condescending remarks about length of reply be left out of it. Simply put, respond with something to think about or that counters the argument, agree, disagree... i.e. add something of merit to the thread.[/color]

"My point is that you have to understand what is meant by the term hybrid by that religion to know what it is shunning."

You can't answer that though. Your guess is as good as any.

You are pro-hybrids, which is why you find ways to rationalize your choice even though you believe in a religion that shuns the concept.
The fact that your personal interpretation was altered in order to accommodate your preferences doesn't mean that this is how the concept hybrid is -really- perceived by organized religion or by the creator of said verse.

In short, the different religious groups can turn the bible to just about anything they want... cause if you can turn a verse such as this, which clearly states "Hybrids are an abomination" into "Hybrids are closer to the original kind", I guess you can pretty much do anything.

Originally Posted by Carpe Serpentis

[COLOR="rgb(153, 50, 204)"]That would indeed be easy to say I disagree or agree.... but I am agreeing here that religion can indeed influence whether we perceive hybrids as being good, bad, or neutral. I am also attempting to see deeper into how I personally rationalize these matters as well as to see how others rationalize these matters. If one does not want to engage in such, easy enough. Leave the topic alone. If however one does wish to engage.... fire away. I would however like it if personal attacks, demeaning remarks, or.... attention deficit style condescending remarks about length of reply be left out of it. Simply put, respond with something to think about or that counters the argument, agree, disagree... i.e. add something of merit to the thread.[/color]

Personal attacks or flaming are not allowed on this site and the moderators will take a dim view of any that occurs. But as for laying down any laws about any thread staying on topic, that's a non-starter.
People can contribute as much or as little as they feel fit. They can give opinions, they can make jokes, they can go off on tangents.
Maybe you would find more of the debates you apparently find so interesting on another forum? Perhaps a hybrid snake forum would be more satisfying to you?

Couldn't embed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZeWPScnolo

Just thought it was nice

Originally Posted by Kokopelli

"My point is that you have to understand what is meant by the term hybrid by that religion to know what it is shunning."

You can't answer that though. Your guess is as good as any.
Actually, I did answer what a kind is and I also offered up a biblical quote that defined what is not allowed as far as hybrids. Leviticus 19:19 so there was no guesswork if one simply used the definitions as they were supplied by baraminology and the bible. So, much better than guesswork. Definitions were supplied. I was going by the baraminology argument as well as the bible verse already supplied.

You are pro-hybrids, which is why you find ways to rationalize your choice even though you believe in a religion that shuns the concept.
The fact that your personal interpretation was altered in order to accommodate your preferences doesn't mean that this is how the concept hybrid is -really- perceived by organized religion or by the creator of said verse.

[COLOR="rgb(153, 50, 204)"]The religion I chose the bible verse I chose.... all prohibit hybrids. But again, I used those versus and their own science to show clearly that a milk x corn were not hybrids in that context. This is not my personal opinion, but rather using the words from Leviticus 19:19 and baraminology (creationist science) to confirm. Absolutely not my personal interpretation.[/color]

In short, the different religious groups can turn the bible to just about anything they want... cause if you can turn a verse such as this, which clearly states "Hybrids are an abomination" into "Hybrids are closer to the original kind", I guess you can pretty much do anything.

[COLOR="rgb(153, 50, 204)"]Now, I will agree with you in the spirit of this last post. When someone or a group of someone's does not agree with a portion of a religious text they often do pick and choose, how to interpret said text, rewrite said text, get new light, etc. or even develop new religions altogether.[/color]

Originally Posted by Kokopelli

Couldn't embed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZeWPScnolo

Just thought it was nice

Tim Minchin is the bomb. Personal opinion of course only.

Originally Posted by diamondlil

Personal attacks or flaming are not allowed on this site and the moderators will take a dim view of any that occurs. But as for laying down any laws about any thread staying on topic, that's a non-starter.
People can contribute as much or as little as they feel fit. They can give opinions, they can make jokes, they can go off on tangents.
Maybe you would find more of the debates you apparently find so interesting on another forum? Perhaps a hybrid snake forum would be more satisfying to you?

Here's two http://www.hybridherps.com http://www.hybridhaven.net

And yes, here threads are like hybrids. They don't always stay pure to their natural.

add something of merit to the thread? Seriously?

http://www.globalnerdy.com/wordpress...012/01/wat.jpg

I usually contribute quite a bit to threads. One sometimes puts more meaning in said words or totally assumes something that is untrue! So one finds it easier to just use emotioncons and memes!

I was being honest. That post was too long, didn't read it!