|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,384 Year: 3,641/9,624 Month: 512/974 Week: 125/276 Day: 22/31 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Vent your frustration here | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3477 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I feel that is what people are missing when they interpret what they think the OT is saying concerning homosexuality. Supposedly in OT times sexual acts were part of some pagan religious rituals. Both heterosexual and homosexual acts were part of the rituals from what I have read. In the NT Jesus said the greatest commandments were:
Mark 12:28-31 One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, "What commandment is the foremost of all?" Jesus answered, "The foremost is, 'Hear O Isreal! The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' "The second is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." With that in mind, both heterosexual and homosexual acts that are done in worship of a pagan god are unacceptable because those committing the acts are not loving the God of Abraham with all their heart, soul, mind, or strength. But loving homosexual relationships, just like loving heterosexual relationships do not prevent the individual from loving the God of Abraham with all their heart, soul, mind, or strength. These relationships also do not prevent individuals from loving their neighbor as themselves. If Christians truly feel that the greatest commandments sum up the OT, then I feel that what they consider morally right or wrong should be weighed against those commandments. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3311 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
purpledawn writes:
I'm just puzzled at the fact that you haven't engaged with Phat on this issue yet. Between you and Phat, who's got the real authority on christian theology? But loving homosexual relationships, just like loving heterosexual relationships do not prevent the individual from loving the God of Abraham with all their heart, soul, mind, or strength. These relationships also do not prevent individuals from loving their neighbor as themselves. Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3445 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
If "consenting adults" is the moral requirment on it's own, then people can kill and harm themselves for lustful gratification. I'm not sure what you mean by killing oneself for lustful gratification...wouldn't that be pretty pointless since you wouldn't be around to get the gratification? Now, hurting oneself or another for pleasure is relevant to the discussion. Many people engage in SM activities and I would say 99.999% of them are consenting (the remaining being those who deliberately push the boundaries set up by their partner, which is a breach of trust equivalent to rape). I see nothing at all wrong with consensual sado-masochism even when more severe bodily harm is done. To go back to killing, I also see nothing wrong with euthanasia. If someone wants to die (for any reason) and consents to having someone kill them, who am I to stop them? The only problem I can see arising from allowing it is trying to differentiate between those who truly want to die and those who have been preyed upon by unscrupulous individuals or "angels of mercy" who put suffering people "out of their misery" without their consent. That can be resolved through legal measures (contracts, possibly psychological testing, etc).
But from God's perspective - I can't see how this moral can be perfect. How do you mean? Furthermore, there are many things that consenting people do that God supposedly condemns. Consent doesn't seem to matter when it comes to God, but it does matter to the discussion at hand - moral relativism.
Consent solves certain problems but is somewhat ad-hoc I find. It's purpose is not to solve every moral question, but it does a handy job for those it is suited to. It applies to sexual relations (as we have been discussing), killing, stealing and governance, to name a few, but I wouldn't bring it up in a discussion of the morality/immorality of lying (although it could be argued in some instances that lying deprives people of the ability to give informed consent) or of the morality/immorality of swearing. "You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Modulous responds to me:
quote:quote: Now you are equivocating. You are taking the literal sense of the phrase, "does not follow," to mean that the inquiry was legitimate but mistaken in its conclusion. That's not what the term means. In discussion logic, a "non sequitur" is a statement that has no connection to what has come before, that comes out of the blue. Ergo, "irrelevant." Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
mike the wiz responds to me:
quote: Huh? Are you saying that there are times when non sequiturs have logical relevance? You do understand what the term "non sequitur" means in a discussion? Yes? The phrase literally means, "does not follow." It refers to a comment that has absolutely no connection to what has come before. It is a statement that is out of the blue and irrelevant to anything that has been brought up. What sort of example can you give that shows an irrelevant statement is somehow relevant? It's what the term "irrelevant" means.
quote: Huh? If it's relevant, then it isn't a non sequitur. That's the point behind the phrase: The statement has no connection to what came before and is, therefore, irrelevant.
quote: What are we, twelve? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Now you are equivocating. You are taking the literal sense of the phrase, "does not follow," to mean that the inquiry was legitimate but mistaken in its conclusion. That's not what the term means. In discussion logic, a "non sequitur" is a statement that has no connection to what has come before, that comes out of the blue. Ergo, "irrelevant." At least now you know that I wasn't contradicting myself, but instead using the phrases in a different way. As I said, your confusion was legitimate - we should now both be clear on what I was saying: NJs conclusion does not follow from his premises, but his statements were relevant to the discussion at hand. Once again we enter the wonderful world of pragmatics and semantics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3477 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Authority is held by the one followed. That's why there are so many different religions and denominations. I'm looking at the issue relative to what Jesus said concerning the Greatest Commandments. Even Hillel supposedly summed up the OT:
That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
mike wiz writes: But from God's perspective - I can't see how this moral can be perfect Jaderis writes: How do you mean? Jaderis writes: I see nothing at all wrong with consensual sado-masochism even when more severe bodily harm is done. Jaderis writes: To go back to killing, I also see nothing wrong with euthanasia. If someone wants to die (for any reason) and consents to having someone kill them, who am I to stop them? This might be fine for you, but from my perspective, I don't think God sees these morals as fine, to him. Killing for lust is not right. Ending your life for a thrill is clearly not going to be God's will for your life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Rrhain begging the question asks;
What sort of example can you give that shows an irrelevant statement is somehow relevant? It's what the term "irrelevant" means. A rigged game still doesn't prove your assertion. Your claim is that a non sequitur is irrelevant. You assume it is a given, above. What you mean to say is; "What sort of example can you give that shows a non-sequitur which is relevant?" Why, the example I gave.
Huh? If it's relevant, then it isn't a non sequitur. That is a non sequitur because it does not follow.
Huh? Are you saying that there are times when non sequiturs have logical relevance? Tee hee hee, relevance has become "logical relevance".
What are we, twelve? I am an incessant goon, but I only do it for me really so don't take it personally.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[quote]To go back to killing, I also see nothing wrong with euthanasia. If someone wants to die (for any reason) and consents to having someone kill them, who am I to stop them? The only problem I can see arising from allowing it is trying to differentiate between those who truly want to die and those who have been preyed upon by unscrupulous individuals or "angels of mercy" who put suffering people "out of their misery" without their consent. That can be resolved through legal measures (contracts, possibly psychological testing, etc).[quote]
Do you include depression as a legitimate reason for someone to want to die?
The reason I ask is because most people who suffer a major depressive episode during their lifetime recover from it. ...if they don't kill themselves first, of course. While I share your opinion on euthanasia for terminal, physically painful diseases and conditions, I really heasitate in the case of depression.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
PD writes: But loving homosexual relationships, just like loving heterosexual relationships do not prevent the individual from loving the God of Abraham with all their heart, soul, mind, or strength. These relationships also do not prevent individuals from loving their neighbor as themselves. Yea sure, a love/hate relationship with the couple loving their conceived version of God, all the while the Biblical God Jehovah and the apostles of his Christ soundly denouncing and condemning the practice as devious to the point of the OT Levitical Law imposing the death penalty on Israelites who practiced it along with adultery and both the OT and NT denouncing it as evil as adultery , fornication, et al. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 436 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
"Same sex" is meaningless. You and the lesbian are attracted to the same person. Why is your attraction any different than hers? Same sex is not meaningless, just because you typed it. There is a difference, and you are not a gay basher for pointing it out, plain and simple.Plus you are putting all the fault of the attraction on the person who we are attracted to, as if that was the final determination in why we are attracted to something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 436 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
mike the wiz writes: Is attraction for young boys the same as attraction for male or female? Don't be stupid. Are the words CONSENTING ADULTS not in your vocabulary? Consenting adults is meaningless, they are attracted to the same person. What makes it different?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Therefore, is every attraction justified? I'm not sure how any attraction could be justified, why would an attraction need to be justified?
Is every attraction the same in it's righteousness? I cannot conceive of an attraction that is immoral. I resent the idea of thought-crime.
Is attraction for young boys the same as attraction for male or female? Attraction is attraction regardless of who or what is the object of attraction.
It is not in that the purpose of the designer, is to propegate the species. That is the clear purpose of sex, therefore any side-lusts are infact sinful to us. I think the purpose of the designer was to create bodies that help the alleles within that body survive and propagate - and that doesn't need to be through reproduction. Sex has other uses: a social use for example. Then again, sex and attraction are different entities.
If we justify lusts - then that includes ALL LUSTS for we then can not differentiate - the wicked then question why should it be wrong to do wickedly! There is a difference between being attracted to something or someone and acting upon that attraction. As social animals we band together for mutual protection, and so we punish those that step over the agreed upon social rules. The major social rule of modern western culture is that you should not infringe upon someone else's rights to freedom and happiness. Difficult in practice, but there are some clear violations of this. Hurting another person mentally or physically would be infringing on their rights to happiness - and is thus against social rules which is another way of saying 'immoral'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
riVeRraT writes: Same sex is not meaningless, just because you typed it. There is a difference... If there is a meaning to "same sex", why haven't you been able to tell us what it is, after being asked repeatedly? Let's try again: What's the difference between your attraction to a woman and a lesbian's attraction to the same woman? Don't just stamp your little foot and say, "It just is! So there!" If there's any meaning to the "difference", tell us what it is.
... and you are not a gay basher for pointing it out, plain and simple. Seeing a "difference" where there is none is practically the definition of bigotry.
Plus you are putting all the fault of the attraction on the person who we are attracted to... I'm not putting any "fault" on anybody - you are. I'm saying there is no fault in being attracted to a person (a consenting adult).
... they are attracted to the same person. What makes it different? That's what I'm asking you. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024