Pengiuns

[Faggot the Hutt]

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

they failed so miserable regarding the PEDOPHILES within it's flock, yes.

homosexuals? that's still up for debate.

GAY Pedophiles.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by ****** the Hutt

GAY Pedophiles.

in that case, it seems that the problem that their not adressing is not the gay part. if that was the only problem, the priests would be raping grown men.....

[bjacobs]

edit.

[D'Artagnan1673]

Originally Posted by bjacobs

Sin is intentionally, unnecessarily harming other people. To call things "sins" because of an ancient Jewish text that most Jews don't even follow word for word (I surely don't) seems a bit absurd, as does quoting from Christian ideology. At some point some of you need to realize that if you weren't born into a Christian family and indoctrinated with certain ideas, you'd almost certainly see those ideological arguments as ridiculous. Your perspective might also be different if you were born into such a family, but happened to be gay. Why should a Buddhist care what you've been taught to believe about God's opinion on ****ing? Why should an almost agnostic Jew like me care what you think about the torah? Get your own damn book, we know what ours says, and a lot of us have decided that what we see with our own eyes and experience with our own lives is more important than some parts of an old book that just don't make any sense.

Gay people don't harm others by virtue of being gay. So mind your own ****ing business.

The Christian New Testiment says that in the end times, people will do what is right in the sight of their own eyes. That is a very good assesment of what you are saying. Faith, a gift from God, is necessary to understand scripture. There are children of faithful, churchgoing families that behave just as the rest of the world does. The difference is not just how you were brought up, but whether or not you have faith.

[Soldier]

Chill, man. We're not forcing you to believe anything; we're debating. This serves two purposes: First is the extremely remote chance that you (the general you) will change your mind and agree with us. If you do so, that's your choice. The second is the primary purpose: For third parties - those who are not decided but are currently deciding, and these arguments are weighing on their decision - it is them we are trying to win over.

So, no thank you, we will not mind our own f***ing business.

[bjacobs]

edit.

[Soldier]

Faith is not laziness. There are still plenty of things in this world to puzzle out (the Bible says nothing about my physics class). And faith brings with it a set of morals - things you can't do even though you might want to. Things you should do even though you might not want to. It takes a lot more strength to stand up and hold those, than to just say "whatever I think is okay, is cool".

[bjacobs]

Soldier:

I'm not saying it's easy to do all the things that an irrational faith says you have to do. Orthodox Jews go through incredible bother fulfilling the dictates of their faith: do you think they want to take the stairs on Sabbath, to avoid cooking or writing or doing any number of things? Even so, faith is intellectual laziness, a decision to swallow a religion whole without trying to make the effort yourself to figure out what's really going on, what makes sense.

Are my only two options unthinking belief in your moral code and saying, "whatever I think is okay, cool?" I personally don't think so.

[jeff]

First the joke, then the serious bit: Soldier's "So, no thank you, we will not mind our own f***ing business" reminds me of the Dorothy Parker quote that she was too f***ing busy, and vice versa. Off topic, but so what.

On the serious side: I'm on bjacob's side here. I don't think anyone minds debate or meeting of minds; what's objectionable is coersion, and trying to force everybody else to live by your rules.

[Soldier]

I agree coercion is objectionable, but I have yet to see any here.

Faith is not intellectual laziness, either - few people actually swallow a religion whole. I get more intellectual challenge out of my faith than just about any other topic, currently. Tell me...how much experience do you ahve with faith?

And yes, those are pretty much your only two options. There's two kinds of morals: Relative, and absolute. Relative morals are the kind that change based on the societal thought of the time; what is generally accepted. And you'd be surprised what the human mind can accept. Look at Nazi Germany. Absolute morals are the kind based on a Higher Power or Set of Rules. Ten Commandments, teachings of Christ, Pillars of Islam, Mosaic Law, etc. Those do not change with the times, or with the general societal attitude - what is right is right, always. What is wrong is wrong, always. And before you point out things like persecution of early Christians, the crusades, or the current Islamic jihad, those are perversions of the faiths they pretend to follow. Most of these rules are up for some interpretation on the fine points, but these perversions can't be obtained from a simple mis-interpretation of a few lines. They are the product of evil people justifying evil deeds through twisting the words of Scripture.

[Faggot the Hutt]

This thread is STILL here? I think I should start charging Craig for my services on this site. That's right, Craig! Without me your site would be nothing! NOTHING!

Well, I'm sure it'd be something. But, boy would it be boring.

[telkanuru]

Yes. The same way a peaceful town is boring because it's not a war zone

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Soldier

I agree coercion is objectionable, but I have yet to see any here.

Not here certainly, though I've received repeated harrassing private messages intended to "save me" against my will till I rudely told the sender to piss off. I meant in general society, where it's widespread.

Originally Posted by Soldier

Faith is not intellectual laziness, either - few people actually swallow a religion whole. I get more intellectual challenge out of my faith than just about any other topic, currently. Tell me...how much experience do you ahve with faith?

Good for you - though I've seen plenty of people that do swallow it whole. I mean, isn't that mandatory if you're one of the people that believes the bible is literally true word for word? (For starters: is the universe only a few thousand years old, as the literalists require?) Yes, I was brought up with a religious background but found it empty and unconvincing.

To your long quote about relative vs. absolute morals: for people who are really into it, there's an entire field of philosophy and behavior based on how one derives absolute notions of morality without recourse to a deity. Not my cup of tea, but really, that study (and people living by it) really do exist, and they feel their moral basis is as deep as any deist's. In fact, the obvious fallacy to point out is that, since multiple religions condone or even require evil behavior ("Kill the heretic and infidel", "Forcibly convert those Indians" and many more), then organized religion is at best neutral with respect to morality: it has no more claim on absolute morality than non-religion

[bjacobs]

Well said, Jeff.

Soldier, once again you've narrowed the field to two choices when that simply isn't so. I don't believe in your god, and definitely don't believe in the "Hebrew God" as written in the torah, but still don't see my morality as relative. I certainly don't base it on what is generally accepted; do you think the first people to realize that there's no sin in being gay believed what was generally accepted?

As to absolutism, it may be true that what is right is always right, and what is wrong is always wrong, though I'm far from certain. However, that doesn't mean the bible has the answers, or that people were ever right to persecute homosexuality. Despite that fact that it was and still is in some places, as you put it, "generally socially accepted" to persecute gay people, in an absolute sense it's always wrong.

[Soldier]

Jeff - Please look again at what I said of perversions. "Kill the heretic and infidel", "forcibly convert those Indians", and many more - are perversions. They are people who want to do the killing already or want some land, twisting the words of religion to suit their own needs. Any halfway-decent person looking at the Bible/Koran/Torah/whatever will not get those messages.

Bjacobs: I agree that persecution of homosexuals is wrong. In places where it is socially acceptable to persecute them, that can be a perfect example of relative morality.

I would argue that the practice of homosexuality is in fact a sin, and its widespread (and gaining) acceptance is evidence of the prevailing "progressive" attitude changing the relative morals of this country, forcing everyone to accept it.

And if you don't see your morality as relative, what is it based on? Are you saying you would really have been against slavery, had you lived in 1700s South Carolina?

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Soldier

{snip}
And if you don't see your morality as relative, what is it based on? Are you saying you would really have been against slavery, had you lived in 1700s South Carolina?

Assuming morality is absolute, is it based upon the Bible?

Assuming that is so, how is one to determine that slavery is immoral (I'm assuming that you agree it is) given it's widespread favorable mention and lack of condemnation--even in the New Testament (though presumbably if morals are absolute, it would have likewise been immoral prior to the birth of Christ)?

--Philistine

[Soldier]

Where is it shown as favorable in the New Testament?

Yes, it was shown as such in the Old Testament - but again, the Laws changed when Christ came about.

So no, the rules changed through the Bible. However. The important part that still remains is that the laws we follow now are in accordance with the will of a Higher Power, not just other men. I say that yes, it is based upon the Bible - but not everyone would agree on using the Bible. There are different sets of rules which people view absolutely, granted. But the key is still that these are not rules made by men, changeable by men - they are rules from above, which remain the same regardless of the wishes of man.

[Mo]

What is interesting to me is the way so many Christians feel free to judge all non Christians based on their own limited, patriarchal viewpoint of the world.
The church limits the roles women and anyone else they deem not worthy.
If Christians want to be looked upon more favorably, perhaps they should be a heck of a lot less judgemental. It is easy to point out how "sinful" it is to be a homosexual and avoid looking at what a totall a$$hole they really are.
Log, eye think about it.....

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Where is it shown as favorable in the New Testament?

Either favorably or not in any way disfavorable:

Luke 12:45-48: "The lord [owner] of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."

Colossians 4:1: "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven."

1 Timothy 6:1-3 "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;"

1 Corinthians 12:13: "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."

Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

Colossians 3:11: "Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all."

Yes, it was shown as such in the Old Testament - but again, the Laws changed when Christ came about.

So the morality of slavery changed? Why?

{snip}
There are different sets of rules which people view absolutely, granted. But the key is still that these are not rules made by men, changeable by men - they are rules from above, which remain the same regardless of the wishes of man.

My main issue, is that--even if there was one set of moral absloutes--how are we supposed to determine what they are?

Christians have been trying for nearly two-thousand years, and haven't been able to come up with a complete set.

Each generation thinks that its own set of morals is the absolute correct one. So far, they've all been wrong.

--Philistine

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Jeff - Please look again at what I said of perversions. "Kill the heretic and infidel", "forcibly convert those Indians", and many more - are perversions. They are people who want to do the killing already or want some land, twisting the words of religion to suit their own needs. Any halfway-decent person looking at the Bible/Koran/Torah/whatever will not get those messages.

We're in agreement those are perversions of those books and religions, but the sad fact is that those are and were very popular perversions, endorsed and participated in by leading religious figures. Just looking at intra-Christian conflicts: the 1400s through the 1600s had bloody massacres among people within the same religion. Sadly, many people who felt themselves to be decent and God fearing participated, because their religions told them to do so.

Rather than worry about people they think are perverts, religions should worry about the perversions committed in religion's name - far more harm is done there.

The absolutism and total moral certainty conferred by religion provides the zealot with an unlimited justification for whatever he acts believes he should do, untainted by doubt or relativism. Nice wh