|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Discrimination against homosexuals carried into the 21st century | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2539 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
no no no no no. listen to what you said.
of the natural order which must be assumed to be correct and good you are talking about a single, specific natural order. why can't there be other natural orders? that's what I was getting at by referencing slavery and fuedalism. those concepts were once part of the natural order. but those natural orders no longer exist for the majority of us. Which means you cannot assume that this specific natural order is right and good--because history shows us that the natural order of things changes, and today, we view slavery as bad. 200 years ago, it was, if not good, not bad. changing natural order. sin also has no real relation to right and wrong. I recognize right and wrong--but sin is a religious concept superimposed on "wrong". I view purposeful lying as wrong. you view it as a sin. the difference? your religious worldview. You do not need the concept of sin to determine right and wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5875 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Proverbs 20:5 The purposes of a man's heart are deep waters, but a man of understanding draws them out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3318 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Rob, ever considered a career being a fortune cookie writer rather than driving trucks?
Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : No reason given. AKA G.A.S.B.Y. George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5875 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
why can't there be other natural orders? Because being is dependant upon law. No Gravity = no you. What you see as a fence is the only thing keeping you from floating into space. Same in the moral realm. You don't have to believe me, and I cannot convince you. It's just something you come to terms with at the proper time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2539 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
um. . .acutally, w/o gravity, I would just float away. i would still exist, but i don't think anything beyond molecules would exist if there was no gravity (i'm no phycist, so i can't comment accurately on matters of existence w/o gravity, thats just my opinion)
however, mind actually responding to my rebutal? you know, with some real words, instead of a single phrase that's fairly insignificant and says nothing about the issue at hand?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5875 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Rob, ever considered a career being a forune cookie writer rather than driving trucks? I actually expected more from you... Once again, what is written is true. Mattew 8:22 But Jesus told him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5875 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
I view purposeful lying as wrong. you view it as a sin. the difference? your religious worldview. You do not need the concept of sin to determine right and wrong. So a man drinking snakes blood mixed with hard liquor and sexually devastating an 18 month old baby girl is only incorrect in your mind? A mistake? You don't believe in evil? Have you ever heard of Auschwitz or Mydanek? Are you alive Kuresu or as the Nazi's liked to say, are you nothing but 'blood and soil'? Jesus didn't come to the world to make bad people good. he came into the world to make dead people live. To make those dead to God, alive to Him. Those who will hear the truth. Edited by Rob, : No reason given. Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3318 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Rob writes:
Thanks, but the truth is I have absolutely zip knowledge in theology and lalaland philosophy. Your discussion looks like a bunch of messages from the fortune cookies I've read over the years. I actually expected more from you... AKA G.A.S.B.Y. George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5979 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
kuresu writes: you are talking about a single, specific natural order. I'll rebut you.You are talking about a single natural order too. You just don't realize it. why can't there be other natural orders? There might be other orders, but they aren't natural. You say slavery was part of the natural order. No, it wasn't. The natural order is equality. What do you not understand about the word 'inalienable'? Do you think an 'inalienable right' is supposed to change? Do you think it was ever GOOD to take away a person's freedom? Was it ever GOOD to take away their life? Is it 'natural'? Slavery was not good just because a lot of people in a certain time period got away with it. If that were the case, then why don't we say it used to be good, and things changed? Do you think the descendents of those slaves would be happy to hear you say 'slavery used to be natural'? You know what is funny? When a christian tries to rationalize the crusades by talking about how conquest was 'natural' back then, it doesn't go over well. We recognize the same natural law looking backwards as that which we have in the present. There are plenty of things that change in the course of history. Coal mining is still not evil just because people switched to oil. I don't see why giving up slavery would be any different, if it was so 'natural'. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1370 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I see... another one of those pesky coincidences. no, just a misreading. this is not the topic for this thread. perhaps you'd like to carry on elsewhere?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5875 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
no, just a misreading. this is not the topic for this thread. perhaps you'd like to carry on elsewhere? Topic shmopic... it's all the same, you know that. Good game though... I feel alive and humble, and energized, and weak. High stakes abundant life adventure. I may not conquer the dragon, but the dragon cannot have me. I am His.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2539 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
there's a difference between mistake and wrong. Doing such things are wholeheartedly wrong. and yes, in my mind, what the Nazi's did to twelve million people was pure evil.
that doesn't make those actions sins. i thought I laid out the difference clearly enough. the concept of "sin" is a wholly religious idea--basically, you are breaking god's law/word/whatever.He doesn't like that. hence, its a sin. Now then, since sin requires a god, and is a religious concept, and since I don't believe in God and don't follow any religion, how can sin apply to me? There are right actions, and there are wrong actions. "sin" is an added layer, fluff if you will, to this picture. It is neither required or necessary to make value judgements. Removing the concept of "sin" does not remove concepts of "right" and "wrong". and as a personal question, why do you have to have someone constantly reminding you such and such an action is "sinful"? is your moral fiber so weak that you have to have "sin" and the retribution that comes with it? Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2539 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
The natural order is equality it is today. Go back 1,000 years ago. What was equality for medieval europe? they had no such concept. heirarchy was the natural order of things. from Lord->Vassal/Lord->Vassal/Lord . . .->Serf. Go back to the classical world. Slavery was acceptable. If you didn't pay your bills, were a prisoner of war, among other things, you could/did end up as a slave. And this was not seen as out of the natural order of things. 2-300 years ago, it was argued that africans were a lower race. the best way to use them was in slavery, and since they weren't human, it didn't matter. That was the natural order of things. The natural order of things I refer to is an always changing ideal of the world--of how things should be. I recognize that this thing is changing, ever changing, for good or for worse. You are referring to a natural order stuck in a specific idea/time, of an unchanging one. You say that this "natural order of sexuality" must be recognized as good and correct. This order, too, will change. It has changed. even 50 years ago, it was "unnatural" for blacks and whites to marry. it disturbed the "natural order of things". Today, it doesn't. why? that order has changed. your arguments against homosexuality have about as much credence as those against interracial marriages. Now you say the natural order is
The natural order is equality
then how is it natural to prohibit homosexuals the right to marry and enjoy the benefits of marriage? doing so, would be unnatural, to your order. Something tells me you didn't mean this--because you find homosexuality to be an abomination before the lord. therefore, its only right to discriminate against them. But then, that destroys your order of equality, doesn't it? Rob, be careful. Be very careful. You claim to want equality, and yet you do not want to give equality. Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5526 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
anastasia wrote:
Well, I'm certainly not in favor of slavery, but I don't think "equality" is the natural order of anything. Nature is NOT fair, NOT a democracy. In fact, slavery is quite a natural thing in many insect colonies, if you call capturing other bugs alive and forcing them into domestic servatude, sometime even making them feed the larvae with their own bodies. You say slavery was part of the natural order. No, it wasn't. The natural order is equality. ”Hoot Mon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
anastasia writes: You say slavery was part of the natural order. No, it wasn't. The point is that people claimed that slavery was part of the natural order - just like people continue to claim that heterosexuality is part of the natural order. The "natural order" might not change, but our ideas about it do change.
Do you think an 'inalienable right' is supposed to change? The men who wrote about "inalienable rights" owned slaves and denied women the vote. So, yes, "inalienable rights" do change.
We recognize the same natural law looking backwards as that which we have in the present. Obviously not. 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