Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: OzmO on May 15, 2012, 06:07:35 PM
-
religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/15/my-take-what-the-bible-really-says-about-homosexuality/?hpt=hp_c1 (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/15/my-take-what-the-bible-really-says-about-homosexuality/?hpt=hp_c1)
My Take: What the Bible really says about homosexuality
Editor's note: Daniel A. Helminiak, who was ordained a priest in Rome, is a theologian, psychotherapist and author of “What the Bible Really Says about homosexuality" and books on contemporary spirituality. He is a professor of psychology at the University of West Georgia.
By Daniel A. Helminiak, Special to CNN
President Barack Obama’s support of same-sex marriage, like blood in the water, has conservative sharks circling for a kill. In a nation that touts separation of religion and government, religious-based arguments command this battle. Lurking beneath anti-gay forays, you inevitably find religion and, above all, the Bible.
We now face religious jingoism, the imposition of personal beliefs on the whole pluralistic society. Worse still, these beliefs are irrational, just a fiction of blind conviction. Nowhere does the Bible actually oppose homosexuality.
In the past 60 years, we have learned more about sex, by far, than in preceding millennia. Is it likely that an ancient people, who thought the male was the basic biological model and the world flat, understood homosexuality as we do today? Could they have even addressed the questions about homosexuality that we grapple with today? Of course not.
CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories
Hard evidence supports this commonsensical expectation. Taken on its own terms, read in the original languages, placed back into its historical context, the Bible is ho-hum on homosexuality, unless – as with heterosexuality – injustice and abuse are involved.
That, in fact, was the case among the Sodomites (Genesis 19), whose experience is frequently cited by modern anti-gay critics. The Sodomites wanted to rape the visitors whom Lot, the one just man in the city, welcomed in hospitality for the night.
The Bible itself is lucid on the sin of Sodom: pride, lack of concern for the poor and needy (Ezekiel 16:48-49); hatred of strangers and cruelty to guests (Wisdom 19:13); arrogance (Sirach/Ecclesiaticus 16:8); evildoing, injustice, oppression of the widow and orphan (Isaiah 1:17); adultery (in those days, the use of another man’s property), and lying (Jeremiah 23:12).
But nowhere are same-sex acts named as the sin of Sodom. That intended gang rape only expressed the greater sin, condemned in the Bible from cover to cover: hatred, injustice, cruelty, lack of concern for others. Hence, Jesus says “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 19:19; Mark 12:31); and “By this will they know you are my disciples” (John 13:35).
How inverted these values have become! In the name of Jesus, evangelicals and Catholic bishops make sex the Christian litmus test and are willing to sacrifice the social safety net in return.
The longest biblical passage on male-male sex is Romans 1:26-27: "Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another."
The Greek term para physin has been translated unnatural; it should read atypical or unusual. In the technical sense, yes, the Stoic philosophers did use para physin to mean unnatural, but this term also had a widespread popular meaning. It is this latter meaning that informs Paul's writing. It carries no ethical condemnation.
Compare the passage on male-male sex to Romans 11:24. There, Paul applies the term para physin to God. God grafted the Gentiles into the Jewish people, a wild branch into a cultivated vine. Not your standard practice! An unusual thing to do — atypical, nothing more. The anti-gay "unnatural" hullabaloo rests on a mistranslation.
Besides, Paul used two other words to describe male-male sex: dishonorable (1:24, 26) and unseemly (1:27). But for Paul, neither carried ethical weight. In 2 Corinthians 6:8 and 11:21, Paul says that even he was held in dishonor — for preaching Christ. Clearly, these words merely indicate social disrepute, not truly unethical behavior.
In this passage Paul is referring to the ancient Jewish Law: Leviticus 18:22, the “abomination” of a man’s lying with another man. Paul sees male-male sex as an impurity, a taboo, uncleanness — in other words, “abomination.” Introducing this discussion in 1:24, he says so outright: "God gave them up … to impurity."
But Jesus taught lucidly that Jewish requirements for purity — varied cultural traditions — do not matter before God. What matters is purity of heart.
“It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles,” reads Matthew 15. “What comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile.”
Or again, Jesus taught, “Everyone who looks at a women with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). Jesus rejected the purity requirements of the Jewish Law.
In calling it unclean, Paul was not condemning male-male sex. He had terms to express condemnation. Before and after his section on sex, he used truly condemnatory terms: godless, evil, wicked or unjust, not to be done. But he never used ethical terms around that issue of sex.
As for marriage, again, the Bible is more liberal than we hear today. The Jewish patriarchs had many wives and concubines. David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi, and Daniel and the palace master were probably lovers.
The Bible’s Song of Songs is a paean to romantic love with no mention of children or a married couple. Jesus never mentioned same-sex behaviors, although he did heal the “servant” — pais, a Greek term for male lover — of the Roman Centurion.
-
But nowhere are same-sex acts named as the sin of Sodom. That intended gang rape only expressed the greater sin, condemned in the Bible from cover to cover: hatred, injustice, cruelty, lack of concern for others. Hence, Jesus says “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 19:19; Mark 12:31); and “By this will they know you are my disciples” (John 13:35).
Not true. Second to the last book of the New Testament:
Jude 1:6-7
New King James Version (NKJV)
6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jude+1%3A6-7&version=NKJV
-
lol at homos trying to justify their lusts with the bible. fucking sad, pathetic, and desperate.
-
Not true. Second to the last book of the New Testament:
Jude 1:6-7
New King James Version (NKJV)
6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jude+1%3A6-7&version=NKJV
Perhaps, but kind of indirect and not detailed. Could have just meant whoring around.
-
Not true. Second to the last book of the New Testament:
Jude 1:6-7
New King James Version (NKJV)
6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jude+1%3A6-7&version=NKJV
YAWN!!! Gay activists, trying to use Scripture to justify homosexuality, need to invest in "Hooked On Phonics". The text is so plain, it's ridiculous.
NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, from Genesis to Revelation, says that homosexuality is acceptable.
As usual, they're using the old "they didn't understand homosexuality as we do today" routine. What part of, "you shall NOT lie with a man as one lies with a woman" don't they understand. There is no mistranslation here. Old Testament or New Testament, it's as plain as day.
"Abusers of themselves with mankind".....Gee, I wonder to what group of people that refers ::) .
-
Perhaps, but kind of indirect and not detailed. Could have just meant whoring around.
It directly contradicts the author's contention. The reference to "sexual immorality" could have been talking just about whoring around. The reference to "strange flesh" was clearly talking about homosexuality.
-
YAWN!!! Gay activists, trying to use Scripture to justify homosexuality, need to invest in "Hooked On Phonics". The text is so plain, it's ridiculous.
NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, from Genesis to Revelation, says that homosexuality is acceptable.
As usual, they're using the old "they didn't understand homosexuality as we do today" routine. What part of, "you shall NOT lie with a man as one lies with a woman" don't they understand. There is no mistranslation here. Old Testament or New Testament, it's as plain as day.
"Abusers of themselves with mankind".....Gee, I wonder to what group of people that refers ::) .
Yeah. There are some subjects in the Bible that are not entirely clear. This isn't one of them.
-
even if homosexual sex is against parts of the Bible
does it say anything about homosexuality? I think many people confuse the two.
-
Jesus didn't reject the purity laws. On the contrary, He took them one step further. He focused on the heart.
The heart of adultery is lust. Is this author actually stupid enough to suggest that lusting after a woman is wrong but lusting after a MAN is right? How cracked can you be?
Jesus also stated, "Do you not know that, from the beginning, He created them MALE and FEMALE, MALE and FEMALE created He them".
There's a ringing endorsement for homosexuality, right there!!
-
Jesus didn't reject the purity laws. On the contrary, He took them one step further. He focused on the heart.
The heart of adultery is lust. Is this author actually stupid enough to suggest that lusting after a woman is wrong but lusting after a MAN is right? How cracked can you be?
Jesus also stated, "Do you not know that, from the beginning, He created them MALE and FEMALE, MALE and FEMALE created He them".
There's a ringing endorsement for homosexuality, right there!!
How old are you? ???
Just because it doesn't endorse x, doesn't mean it condemns x
I think by using "lust" you are again confusing homosexual sex with homosexuality.
Sex doesn't have to be in the picture.
-
even if homosexual sex is against parts of the Bible
does it say anything about homosexuality? I think many people confuse the two.
Romans 1: 26-27 covers that one:
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
No matter where you look, anything remotely resembling what we call homosexuality is seen in but one light: SINFUL.
-
It directly contradicts the author's contention. The reference to "sexual immorality" could have been talking just about whoring around. The reference to "strange flesh" was clearly talking about homosexuality.
How so? I don't see it. strange flesh? Heck, it could have been sex with animals.
-
Romans 1: 26-27 covers that one:
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
No matter where you look, anything remotely resembling what we call homosexuality is seen in but one light: SINFUL.
"lust" again.
I've read that 4 times so far. That passage still seems focused on the sex part. ???
-
How old are you? ???
Just because it doesn't endorse x, doesn't mean it condemns x
I think by using "lust" you are again confusing homosexual sex with homosexuality.
Sex doesn't have to be in the picture.
SUUUUURE!! Two guys can have the hots for each, as long as they don't Brokeback each other!!
"X" has been condemned multiple times in Scripture. In the Old Testament, it was a capital offense (safe to say, that's a condemnation).
"Vile affections"....Gee, I wonder if that's a condemnation.
-
SUUUUURE!! Two guys can have the hots for each, as long as they don't Brokeback each other!!
"X" has been condemned multiple times in Scripture. In the Old Testament, it was a capital offense (safe to say, that's a condemnation).
"Vile affections"....Gee, I wonder if that's a condemnation.
isn't lust a vile affection? ???
All I see here is lust and homosexual sex.
I still see nothing about homosexuality. Is your conception of 'love' really this animalistic?
-
"lust" again.
I've read that 4 times so far. That passage still seems focused on the sex part. ???
To what do you think lust leads? Didn't this article just mention that Jesus stated that lusting in one's heart was practically committing adultery?
The point of which was that Jesus wanted people's hearts to change, to get to the root of the problem. The root of adultery is lust. No lust, no adultery. A similar thing can be said for homosexuality.
You stop the mindset and desire, BEFORE the physical act takes place. Much the same way, you curb hatred in your heart, BEFORE it leads to murder. You curb envy in your heart, BEFORE you start stealing.
-
Romans 1: 26-27 covers that one:
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
No matter where you look, anything remotely resembling what we call homosexuality is seen in but one light: SINFUL.
I don't know. just like with strange flesh. At least this one is more a little more direct, but not much. Why not just say, sex with the same sex is a sin? Even put it in the commandments.
I think its safe to say, its not direct, at the very least.
-
To what do you think lust leads? Didn't this article just mention that Jesus stated that lusting in one's heart was practically committing adultery?
The point of which was that Jesus wanted people's hearts to change, to get to the root of the problem. The root of adultery is lust. No lust, no adultery. A similar thing can be said for homosexuality.
You stop the mindset and desire, BEFORE the physical act takes place. Much the same way, you curb hatred in your heart, BEFORE it leads to murder. You curb envy in your heart, BEFORE you start stealing.
lol no lust? Might as well were a blind fold all your life!
-
isn't lust a vile affection? ???
All I see here is lust and homosexual sex.
I still see nothing about homosexuality. Is your conception of 'love' really this animalistic?
There's plenty to see about homosexuality, unless your cataracts are in full gear. Anything, remotely resembling homosexuality (in thought or in deed) is clearly stated as being sinful, in as plain a language as you can get.
Trying to parse words to make excuses for homosexuality in Scripture is a foolish exercise, to say the least.
-
There's plenty to see about homosexuality, unless your cataracts are in full gear. Anything, remotely resembling homosexuality (in thought or in deed) is clearly stated as being sinful, in as plain a language as you can get.
Trying to parse words to make excuses for homosexuality in Scripture is a foolish exercise, to say the least.
Well list it then!
IS there anything DIRECT?
I haven't seen it, and it looks like this theologian says so too.
Most of it, needs heavy interpretation to stick.
-
There's plenty to see about homosexuality, unless your cataracts are in full gear. Anything, remotely resembling homosexuality (in thought or in deed) is clearly stated as being sinful, in as plain a language as you can get.
Trying to parse words to make excuses for homosexuality in Scripture is a foolish exercise, to say the least.
If it was, I wouldnt have to ask you 3 times. Are you really incapable of defining homosexuality apart from animalistic desires such as lust and sex? ???
Do you also think heterosexuality is composed entirely of lust and sex?
-
You would think..... it would say:
For this cause God gave them up unto SIN: instead of "vile affections".
I think the "word" needs some writing classes.
-
How so? I don't see it. strange flesh? Heck, it could have been sex with animals.
Now you're trying just playing devil's advocate. :) You think the reference to strange flesh when talking about Sodom and Gomorrah is talking about bestiality? C'mon.
-
If it was, I wouldnt have to ask you 3 times. Are you really incapable of defining homosexuality apart from animalistic desires such as lust and sex? ???
Do you also think heterosexuality is composed entirely of lust and sex?
What's the difference between "homosexuality" and "homosexual sex"?
-
Now you're trying just playing devil's advocate. :) You think the reference to strange flesh when talking about Sodom and Gomorrah is talking about bestiality? C'mon.
You said it's "clearly" is homosexuality. that guys article is arguing that's its unclear.
I am asking you to show me how "strange flesh" clearly means homosexuality. I mean one would think, for a 11-13 year old boy, strange flesh would be a woman, and familiar flesh would be a man. So, that's just another angle. All i am doing here is asking you to show me how it clearly means homosexuality.
And, just as coincidence, i am leaving right now to go to SFO to pick up someone who is flying in :D
-
What's the difference between "homosexuality" and "homosexual sex"?
so you think all virgins are neither heterosexuals nor homosexuals?
???
Or take it on the other end of the spectrum with older men and women who no longer have sex
-
You said it's "clearly" is homosexuality. that guys article is arguing that's its unclear.
I am asking you to show me how "strange flesh" clearly means homosexuality. I mean one would think, for a 11-13 year old boy, strange flesh would be a woman, and familiar flesh would be a man. So, that's just another angle. All i am doing here is asking you to show me how it clearly means homosexuality.
And, just as coincidence, i am leaving right now to go to SFO to pick up someone who is flying in :D
Yes, it's clear. If you're asking me to show you whether there was rampant homosexuality in Sodom and Gomorah, I'll have to do some homework. I just got off the plane myself, so it might take me a little while. :) But there isn't any legitimate dispute about what was going on in those cities.
The author's commentary didn't even mention the passage in Jude, which completely undercuts his credibility IMO.
-
so you think all virgins are neither heterosexuals nor homosexuals?
???
Or take it on the other end of the spectrum with older men and women who no longer have sex
? You are trying to draw a distinction between homosexuality and homosexual sex. I'm asking you what you believe the difference is.
-
Yes, it's clear. If you're asking me to show you whether there was rampant homosexuality in Sodom and Gomorah, I'll have to do some homework. I just got off the plane myself, so it might take me a little while. :) But there isn't any legitimate dispute about what was going on in those cities.
The author's commentary didn't even mention the passage in Jude, which completely undercuts his credibility IMO.
Lots of things were going on in those cities, just like lots of things go on in every city. But so far, you or anyone else hasn't been able to point out where it directly stated that Homosexuality is a sin. Now, it has been described as a vile affliction, but NOT a sin.
So please, show me where its clear: Homosexuality is a sin. Show me God saying it is a sin. Haven't seen it yet. Neither has McWay been able to show with out heavy interpretation.
What i have seen is passages that can be taken for different meanings such as "strange flesh" and "vile affections"
If you guys can pony up a verse that directly says it, it would be great.
-
Lots of things were going on in those cities, just like lots of things go on in every city. But so far, you or anyone else hasn't been able to point out where it directly stated that Homosexuality is a sin. Now, it has been described as a vile affliction, but NOT a sin.
So please, show me where its clear: Homosexuality is a sin. Show me God saying it is a sin. Haven't seen it yet. Neither has McWay been able to show with out heavy interpretation.
What i have seen is passages that can be taken for different meanings such as "strange flesh" and "vile affections"
If you guys can pony up a verse that directly says it, it would be great.
So you think something could be described in the Bible as a "vile affection," but not be sinful?
In terms of verses that describe homosexuality as a sin, there are plenty. Here is one:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
New King James Version (NKJV)
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:9-10&version=NKJV
-
? You are trying to draw a distinction between homosexuality and homosexual sex. I'm asking you what you believe the difference is.
one is copulatory acts that are performed to induce pleasure in homo's, the other is a state which indicates deep connection and reverence for another. With respect to homo's it has to have a component of attraction, otherwise a man loving his son is gay. Still sex and love are not tied at all, nor is attraction and orientation.
-
So you think something could be described in the Bible as a "vile affection," but not be sinful?
In terms of verses that describe homosexuality as a sin, there are plenty. Here is one:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
New King James Version (NKJV)
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:9-10&version=NKJV
Still unclear and nor direct, although more direct i suppose. (not after actual research)
You forgot to post the footnote in your link:
Footnotes:
1 Corinthians 6:9 That is, catamites
What 's a Catamite? a boy who has a sexual relationship with a man.
cat·a·mite
[kat-uh-mahyt] Show IPA
noun: a boy or youth who is in a sexual relationship with a man.
Which is different than 2 men having a sexual relationship. And in this verse, the BOY is unrighteous not the man. Interesting lol.
Let's look at the KVJ version:
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
ef·fem·i·nate
[adj. ih-fem-uh-nit; v. ih-fem-uh-neyt] Show IPA adjective, verb, ef·fem·i·nat·ed, ef·fem·i·nat·ing.
adjective
1.
(of a man or boy) having traits, tastes, habits, etc., traditionally considered feminine, as softness or delicacy.
Interesting isn't it? Looks like intellectual dishonesty here among interpretors
Clearly they are talking about boys who act like girls not going to heaven.
They are NOT clearly talking about homosexuals and NOT clearly saying homosexuality is a sin.
I am sure there is a verse in the Bible that clearly states homosexuality is a sin, isn't there?
-
The words of Jesus Christ:
Matthew 19:4-5
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’
5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?
-
The words of Jesus Christ:
Matthew 19:4-5
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’
5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?
Maybe you can help loco.
Is there anything in the Bible that directly says Homosexuality is a sin?
What you put up here isn't.
the author of the article/book is making a case that there is not. Perhaps you can shed some light?
-
Maybe you can help loco.
Is there anything in the Bible that directly says Homosexuality is a sin?
What you put up here isn't.
the author of the article/book is making a case that there is not. Perhaps you can shed some light?
What I put up there certainly says Jesus ain't okay with gay marriage. ;D
I don't have time to read the article, but here you go:
Leviticus 18:22
Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
Romans 1:26-27
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
-
What I put up there certainly says Jesus ain't okay with gay marriage. ;D
I don't have time to read the article, but here you go:
Leviticus 18:22
“‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
Romans 1:26-27
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Good stuff, still doesn't directly say homosexuality is a sin. Its does say it's detestable, shameful and unnatural. If it was direct it would have said: due penalty for their SIN.
Most direct so far though.
-
Good stuff, still doesn't directly say homosexuality is a sin. Its does say it's detestable, shameful and unnatural. If it was direct it would have said: due penalty for their SIN.
Most direct so far though.
What? God says it is detestable, shameful and unnatural, and you say it is not sin? What is sin then?
-
It's as direct as you can get. Yet, some folk here simply don't want to acknowledge the obvious. They're looking to parse words and use semantics.
As Beach Bum said, there may be some cloudy areas in the Bible. But, homosexuality ain't one of them.
Sex outside of marriage: sinful
Components of marriage: MALE and FEMALE
It's as plain and simple as that. Directly, indirectly, obtusely, acutely, oblong, not matter what angle you use, NOWHERE DOES SCRIPTURE describe homosexuality (or anything remotely resembling what we call homosexuality) as anything but sinful, period.
-
What? God says it is detestable, shameful and unnatural, and you say it is not sin? What is sin then?
Is everything that is detestable, shameful and unnatural a sin?
Look I agree the God described in the Bible obviously doesn't like homosexuality. But it's not direct and clear as thou shall not steal. And it's never directly identified as a sin.
-
one is copulatory acts that are performed to induce pleasure in homo's, the other is a state which indicates deep connection and reverence for another. With respect to homo's it has to have a component of attraction, otherwise a man loving his son is gay. Still sex and love are not tied at all, nor is attraction and orientation.
I disagree. (Here's the part where you get mad. . . . Kidding.) Homosexuals define themselves based on who they have sex with. In the case of men, it's a man having sex with another man. In reality, we're not talking about simple feelings. I doubt there are a significant number of celibate homosexuals. Some Catholic priests maybe?
-
Is everything that is detestable, shameful and unnatural a sin?
Look I agree the God described in the Bible obviously doesn't like homosexuality. But it's not direct and clear as thou shall not steal. And it's never directly identified as a sin.
Yes, it is a sin, just like "thou shall not steal"
Leviticus 18:22
King James Version (KJV)
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
Is that direct enough? ;D
-
Yes, it is a sin, just like "thou shall not steal"
Leviticus 18:22
King James Version (KJV)
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
Is that direct enough? ;D
It only took a half dozen posts :D
But it is still murky:
So lying with womankind is also an abomination?
Also, on the unnatural, detestable, and shameful as being a sin, no. Shameful for being last in a race is that a sin? Detestable interior decoration is that a sin? Unnatural modifications to one's body are those sins?
Again, don't get me wrong, i get the God in the bible hates gay people, and if they continue to be gay they should burn in hell. I get it, lol.
-
Leviticus 18:22
King James Version (KJV)
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
But it is still murky:
LOL ;D
-
LOL ;D
I explained why.
Let's change the words:
thou shalt not lie with X, as with Y, it is abomination.
in other words let's say i am your employer and i am talking to you about your job:
Do sleep on the job, as with doing drugs, it is a fire-able offense.
so again:
STILL MURKY. :D
-
I explained why.
Let's change the words:
thou shalt not lie with X, as with Y, it is abomination.
in other words let's say i am your employer and i am talking to you about your job:
Do sleep on the job, as with doing drugs, it is a fire-able offense.
so again:
STILL MURKY. :D
LOL...what are you arguing about again? ;D
-
LOL...what are you arguing about again? ;D
Ok I will just take that as you can not show homosexuality clearly in the bible as a sin unless you use heavy interpretation or murky english. Which par for the course with most of the book.
-
why would God be so upset at what people do with their genital organs?
She has far more interesting things to consider
and why are so many of Gods children obsessed with what other people do with their sex lives. Are they not happy with their own?
-
Ok I will just take that as you can not show homosexuality clearly in the bible as a sin unless you use heavy interpretation or murky english. Which par for the course with most of the book.
It's not murky or unclear at all. But when people want to find an issue with language, even when it's plain as day, they will. You really have to turn the common sense part of your brain off to conclude the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality.
Now if you wanted to take issue with what the Bible says about alcohol, then there is at least something to debate. This one is a no brainer.
-
Also, I don't think God hates homosexuals and the Bible doesn't say that. I think he looks at homosexuals like he does anyone else: no better, no worse.
-
? You are trying to draw a distinction between homosexuality and homosexual sex. I'm asking you what you believe the difference is.
I think homosexuality can include the love and compassion that one feels for their significant other. The close companionship that can come only through love. The phrase "life partner" comes to mind here. I'm also thinking of the first homosexual couple who got married in.....new york city I think. The two women who were in their late 80s. Let's take them for our example. Let's say that sex is no longer on their minds (they've matured past the stepping stone of sex to what sex leads to, which is the closest of relationships). They have that feeling towards a member of their own sex, so I would say they are homosexuals.
Let's keep the discussion (at least in your or any other responses towards me) limited to these two women in their late 80s. They don't experience lust anymore. They don't have sex (in our scenario). They just feel the closeness that only deep love can bring. My point is that nothing in the bible says THAT is wrong. In order to prove that the two late 80 year olds are living in sin, you would have to say something like "well, they used to have sex" or "they used to lust" which would be avoiding my point.
-
Also, I don't think God hates homosexuals and the Bible doesn't say that. I think he looks at homosexuals like he does anyone else: no better, no worse.
Correcto!
God does not hate homosexuals, or adulterers, or thieves or murderers. God hates homosexuality, adultery, sealing and murder.
If God hated homosexuals, then all of humanity would be in trouble.
-
It's not murky or unclear at all. But when people want to find an issue with language, even when it's plain as day, they will. You really have to turn the common sense part of your brain off to conclude the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality.
Now if you wanted to take issue with what the Bible says about alcohol, then there is at least something to debate. This one is a no brainer.
I have yet to see one clear verse that say homo sexuality is a sin. So far the one you showed means something different. The one loco showed indicates sex with man or women is an abomination. The best I see is "vile" affections which could just mean disgusting.
Which all equates to murky.
Also, I don't think God hates homosexuals and the Bible doesn't say that. I think he looks at homosexuals like he does anyone else: no better, no worse.
Does condemning equal hate? Depends on the way you look at I suppose
-
I have yet to see one clear verse that say homo sexuality is a sin.
OzmO, what is a sin?
-
OzmO, what is a sin?
You tell me.
-
You tell me.
I thought you had a definition of sin since you keep saying Homosexuality is not a sin.
-
I thought you had a definition of sin since you keep saying Homosexuality is not a sin.
I thought you did cause you are our resident expert on the Bible.
-
I thought you did cause you are our resident expert on the Bible.
You thought I did what?
-
You thought I did what?
Huh?
-
Huh?
What?
I thought you did cause you are our resident expert on the Bible.
You thought I did what?
-
What?
You thought I did what?
Knew the definition of sin
-
LOL @ people who implement certian parts of the bible and Jesus' life and totally ignore other parts.....gotta love it
-
LOL @ people who implement certian parts of the bible and Jesus' life and totally ignore other parts.....gotta love it
Christians aren't perfect, they are just forgiven. ;)
-
Knew the definition of sin
To Bible believers is pretty simple. Sin is breaking God's laws. God says not to do something, we do it, it is a sin. To us sin is also knowing to do something good, but not doing it.
-
Christians aren't perfect, they are just forgiven. ;)
Yes, but true Christians also do have a desire and do try to be like Jesus Christ.
-
Christians aren't perfect, they are just forgiven. ;)
But how can they site the bible for rationale for certian thought processes and totally ignore other parts that are very clear in the bible as in instructions on how to live. Its the wierd to me
-
To Bible believers is pretty simple. Sin is breaking God's laws. God says not to do something, we do it, it is a sin. To us sin is also knowing to do something good, but not doing it.
So where does it say not to be a homosexual?
-
wanna see me clear out a room full of Right Winged Conservatives...
Deuteronomy 15:7-11 ESV / 46 helpful votes
“If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be. Take care lest there be an unworthy thought in your heart and you say, ‘The seventh year, the year of release is near,’ and your eye look grudgingly on your poor brother, and you give him nothing, and he cry to the Lord against you, and you be guilty of sin You shall give to him freely, and your h.eart shall not be grudging when you give to him, because for this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’
-
hello............. this thing on.............
-
wanna see me clear out a room full of Right Winged Conservatives...
Deuteronomy 15:7-11 ESV / 46 helpful votes
“If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be. Take care lest there be an unworthy thought in your heart and you say, ‘The seventh year, the year of release is near,’ and your eye look grudgingly on your poor brother, and you give him nothing, and he cry to the Lord against you, and you be guilty of sin You shall give to him freely, and your h.eart shall not be grudging when you give to him, because for this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’
Fail. This would actually clear out a room full of liberals. Numerous reports and studies have shown conservative donate to charity more than liberals. One example from a few years ago:
March 27, 2008
Conservatives More Liberal Givers
By George Will
WASHINGTON -- Residents of Austin, Texas, home of the state's government and flagship university, have very refined social consciences, if they do say so themselves, and they do say so, speaking via bumper stickers. Don R. Willett, a justice of the state Supreme Court, has commuted behind bumpers proclaiming "Better a Bleeding Heart Than None at All," "Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty," "The Moral High Ground Is Built on Compassion," "Arms Are For Hugging," "Will Work (When the Jobs Come Back From India)," "Jesus Is a Liberal," "God Wants Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts," "The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans," "Republicans Are People Too -- Mean, Selfish, Greedy People" and so on. But Willett thinks Austin subverts a stereotype: "The belief that liberals care more about the poor may scratch a partisan or ideological itch, but the facts are hostile witnesses."
Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.
If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:
-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.
The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.
Reviewing Brooks' book in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Justice Willett notes that Austin -- it voted 56 percent for Kerry while he was getting just 38 percent statewide -- is ranked by The Chronicle of Philanthropy as 48th out of America's 50 largest cities in per capita charitable giving. Brooks' data about disparities between liberals' and conservatives' charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of America's richest households live in states where both senators are Democrats.
While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."
In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
-
Fail. This would actually clear out a room full of liberals. Numerous reports and studies have shown conservative donate to charity more than liberals. One example from a few years ago:
March 27, 2008
Conservatives More Liberal Givers
By George Will
WASHINGTON -- Residents of Austin, Texas, home of the state's government and flagship university, have very refined social consciences, if they do say so themselves, and they do say so, speaking via bumper stickers. Don R. Willett, a justice of the state Supreme Court, has commuted behind bumpers proclaiming "Better a Bleeding Heart Than None at All," "Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty," "The Moral High Ground Is Built on Compassion," "Arms Are For Hugging," "Will Work (When the Jobs Come Back From India)," "Jesus Is a Liberal," "God Wants Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts," "The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans," "Republicans Are People Too -- Mean, Selfish, Greedy People" and so on. But Willett thinks Austin subverts a stereotype: "The belief that liberals care more about the poor may scratch a partisan or ideological itch, but the facts are hostile witnesses."
Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.
If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:
-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.
The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.
Reviewing Brooks' book in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Justice Willett notes that Austin -- it voted 56 percent for Kerry while he was getting just 38 percent statewide -- is ranked by The Chronicle of Philanthropy as 48th out of America's 50 largest cities in per capita charitable giving. Brooks' data about disparities between liberals' and conservatives' charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of America's richest households live in states where both senators are Democrats.
While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."
In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
I was talking about the Social Welfare thing.. bro relax... "Fail" ::) um... ok
-
I have yet to see one clear verse that say homo sexuality is a sin. So far the one you showed means something different. The one loco showed indicates sex with man or women is an abomination. The best I see is "vile" affections which could just mean disgusting.
Which all equates to murky.
Does condemning equal hate? Depends on the way you look at I suppose
What's your definition/interpretation of sin?
Condemning behavior probably equals hating behavior. This isn't the same as hating a person.
-
WWJD.....
Get a job you leach"....
Yeah Real christlike
-
1 John 3:17 ESV / 39 helpful votes
But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?
-
I was talking about the Social Welfare thing.. bro relax... "Fail" ::) um... ok
Yeah. Right. The verse you quoted talks about individual giving, not government welfare. The study I just posted talks about individual giving. So, nice try, but you should leave this one alone. :)
-
Yeah. Right. The verse you quoted talks about individual giving, not government welfare. The study I just posted talks about individual giving. So, nice try, but you should leave this one alone. :)
no no no... a spirit of giving and taking care of the less fortunate is not has nothing to do with "government Vs individual" thats splitting hairs and molding it to fit political viewpoints...
" But but this was about Government ... not personally giving..." Really... how about this.. it doesnt matter if the source is the government or an individual... the bible says the less fortunate needs to be taken care of by us. I didnt make this up..
Proverbs 14:31 Whoever oppresses a poor man insults his Maker, but he who is generous to the needy honors him.
Proverbs 22:9
Whoever has a bountiful eye will be blessed, for he shares his bread with the poor
This has nothing to do with Gov vs Individual.. and I dont have to leave this alone. You arent the pope and my understanding of the bible is just fine. Now if you want to discuss this we can.. if you wanna go the 3333 route of arguments... youre right.. i will leave this alone
-
What's your definition/interpretation of sin?
Condemning behavior probably equals hating behavior. This isn't the same as hating a person.
Sounds like management training lol. Attack the behavior not the person lol.
I have to take longer look at the argument of God hating gays. I still think he hates gays as described in the bible, but ATM don't really have the time delve into it.
Sin is going against Devine law as defined in the dictionary. The problem is, when it comes to homosexuality it's murky and not straight forward as thou shalt not kill.
-
So where does it say not to be a homosexual?
Now you are just trolling.
-
Sounds like management training lol. Attack the behavior not the person lol.
I have to take longer look at the argument of God hating gays. I still think he hates gays as described in the bible, but ATM don't really have the time delve into it.
Sin is going against Devine law as defined in the dictionary. The problem is, when it comes to homosexuality it's murky and not straight forward as thou shalt not kill.
Just trolling.
-
Now you are just trolling.
Now you are just trolling.
Sorry I don't agree with you about homosexuality clearly being a sin in the bible. Your accusation shows your own frustratioon with someone who doesn't buy into the bible and sees it more as a book of stories used to both oppress and guide people over the ages. and i will take your accusations about me trolling as you admitting you can not show where it is clear. So far only one verse comes close. So this kind of shows you Have nothing left. You won't even counter point my counter points.
A note on your accusation, most trolling is laced with ad hom, you will notice. There is none here. I am simply asking anyone to show how homosexuality is clearly a sin. So far, you have not. You have only shown murky ness.
-
Sorry I don't agree with you about homosexuality clearly being a sin in the bible. Your accusation shows your own frustratioon with someone who doesn't buy into the bible and sees it more as a book of stories used to both oppress and guide people over the ages. and i will take your accusations about me trolling as you admitting you can not show where it is clear. So far only one verse comes close. So this kind of shows you Have nothing left.
A note on your accusation, most trolling is laced with ad hom, you will notice. There is none here. I am simply asking anyone to show how homosexuality is clearly a sin. So far, you have not. You have only shown murky ness.
Troll ;D
-
Troll ;D
Ok loco ::) :)
-
Ok loco ::) :)
Troll ;)
-
Thanks for admitting you have nothing left.
-
no no no... a spirit of giving and taking care of the less fortunate is not has nothing to do with "government Vs individual" thats splitting hairs and molding it to fit political viewpoints...
" But but this was about Government ... not personally giving..." Really... how about this.. it doesnt matter if the source is the government or an individual... the bible says the less fortunate needs to be taken care of by us. I didnt make this up..
Proverbs 14:31 Whoever oppresses a poor man insults his Maker, but he who is generous to the needy honors him.
Proverbs 22:9
Whoever has a bountiful eye will be blessed, for he shares his bread with the poor
This has nothing to do with Gov vs Individual.. and I dont have to leave this alone. You arent the pope and my understanding of the bible is just fine. Now if you want to discuss this we can.. if you wanna go the 3333 route of arguments... youre right.. i will leave this alone
You made the following statement: "wanna see me clear out a room full of Right Winged Conservatives..." Then you posted a verse that talks about charitable giving. You were obviously trying to say "right winged conservatives" don't like and/or engage in charitable giving, helping the poor, etc.
Your premise is wrong. It's contradicted by the article I posted. I can post about ten more, but I doubt you'd read them.
What evidence do you have that "right winged conservatives" don't believe in charity?
-
Thanks for admitting you have nothing left.
Troll ;D
-
Sounds like management training lol. Attack the behavior not the person lol.
I have to take longer look at the argument of God hating gays. I still think he hates gays as described in the bible, but ATM don't really have the time delve into it.
Sin is going against Devine law as defined in the dictionary. The problem is, when it comes to homosexuality it's murky and not straight forward as thou shalt not kill.
Loco already posted the verses that are plain as day. "Thou shalt not" lie with another man. You can only find that murky if you simply want to find a contradiction or ambiguity.
-
Loco already posted the verses that are plain as day. "Thou shalt not" lie with another man. You can only find that murky if you simply want to find a contradiction or ambiguity.
loco saith "Thou shalt not feed the troll" ;D
-
You made the following statement: "wanna see me clear out a room full of Right Winged Conservatives..." Then you posted a verse that talks about charitable giving. You were obviously trying to say "right winged conservatives" don't like and/or engage in charitable giving, helping the poor, etc.
Your premise is wrong. It's contradicted by the article I posted. I can post about ten more, but I doubt you'd read them.
What evidence do you have that "right winged conservatives" don't believe in charity?
Im talking about giving to the poor in general. You cant Anti Social Welfare and be in line with the bible. Be either hot or cold.. not lukewarm.
-
Im talking about giving to the poor in general. You cant Anti Social Welfare and be in line with the bible. Be either hot or cold.. not lukewarm.
Christians are "Anti Social Welfare"? I don't think so. You mean "forced" social welfare? Christians voluntarily give by far more time and money worldwide to the needy(poor people, disaster victims, etc.) than non-Christian liberals. Many generous people, Christian or not, just want social welfare to be voluntary and not forced on them by the government.
Who gives the most to charity?
"Americans give more to charity, per capita and as a percentage of gross domestic product, than the citizens of other nations"
"The most charitable people in America today are the working poor."
"it's in fact low-income employed Americans who give the highest portion of their income, or 4.5%."
"low-income people give almost 30 percent more as a share of their income."
"When you look at the data," says Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks, "it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more. And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."
"But the idea that liberals give more is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above-average percentage of their income, all but one (Maryland) were red -- conservative -- states in the last presidential election."
"The people who give one thing tend to be the people who give everything in America. You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away."
"Conservatives are even 18 percent more likely to donate blood."
"Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money -- four times as much."
"Religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly nonreligious charities. Religious people give more blood; religious people give more to homeless people on the street."
Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism
by Arthur C. Brooks
# ISBN-10: 0465008232
# ISBN-13: 978-0465008230
Who Gives The Most?
http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/24/america-philanthropy-income-oped-cx_ee_1226eaves.html
Who Gives and Who Doesn't?
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=2682730
-
You made the following statement: "wanna see me clear out a room full of Right Winged Conservatives..." Then you posted a verse that talks about charitable giving. You were obviously trying to say "right winged conservatives" don't like and/or engage in charitable giving, helping the poor, etc.
Your premise is wrong. It's contradicted by the article I posted. I can post about ten more, but I doubt you'd read them.
What evidence do you have that "right winged conservatives" don't believe in charity?
That's a laugh. In fact, I've heard some liberals complain that it's easier for conservatives to give, because the mechanisms are set up via their churches.
-
no no no... a spirit of giving and taking care of the less fortunate is not has nothing to do with "government Vs individual" thats splitting hairs and molding it to fit political viewpoints...
" But but this was about Government ... not personally giving..." Really... how about this.. it doesnt matter if the source is the government or an individual... the bible says the less fortunate needs to be taken care of by us. I didnt make this up..
Proverbs 14:31 Whoever oppresses a poor man insults his Maker, but he who is generous to the needy honors him.
Proverbs 22:9
Whoever has a bountiful eye will be blessed, for he shares his bread with the poor
This has nothing to do with Gov vs Individual.. and I dont have to leave this alone. You arent the pope and my understanding of the bible is just fine. Now if you want to discuss this we can.. if you wanna go the 3333 route of arguments... youre right.. i will leave this alone
When the government FORCES you to do so, it ain't giving. What part of that don't you understand? If I want to help someone in need, I don't need Uncle Sam's help or provocation to do it.
What's stopping all these rich liberals from scratching checks from Uncle Sam RIGHT NOW? Why do they need Obama or any other politicians to make laws to force them to do so?
I think that interview with Will Smith in France pretty much sums it up. He said that, as black man, who got the chance to be rich without a college education, he had no problem giving back to his government whatever they thought was fair. Then, the French reporter told him about their proposal to tax the rich, to the tune of 75%.
Smith's response: "God Bless America".
Back to the Bible, there are plenty of verses and guidelines about how to help the poor, NONE OF WHICH involve the government taking other people's money. Take Deut. 24: 19-21, for example:
When thou cuttest down thine harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hands.
When thou beatest thine olive tree, thou shalt not go over the boughs again: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow.
When thou gatherest the grapes of thy vineyard, thou shalt not glean [it] afterward: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow.
-
loco saith "Thou shalt not feed the troll" ;D
lol. Ozmo isn't a troll. I think he just has his mind made up. Doesn't really matter what the Bible says about it.
-
Christians are "Anti Social Welfare"? I don't think so. You mean "forced" social welfare? Christians voluntarily give by far more time and money worldwide to the needy(poor people, disaster victims, etc.) than non-Christian liberals. Many generous people, Christian or not, just want social welfare to be voluntary and not forced on them by the government.
Who gives the most to charity?
"Americans give more to charity, per capita and as a percentage of gross domestic product, than the citizens of other nations"
"The most charitable people in America today are the working poor."
"it's in fact low-income employed Americans who give the highest portion of their income, or 4.5%."
"low-income people give almost 30 percent more as a share of their income."
"When you look at the data," says Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks, "it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more. And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."
"But the idea that liberals give more is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above-average percentage of their income, all but one (Maryland) were red -- conservative -- states in the last presidential election."
"The people who give one thing tend to be the people who give everything in America. You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away."
"Conservatives are even 18 percent more likely to donate blood."
"Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money -- four times as much."
"Religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly nonreligious charities. Religious people give more blood; religious people give more to homeless people on the street."
Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism
by Arthur C. Brooks
# ISBN-10: 0465008232
# ISBN-13: 978-0465008230
Who Gives The Most?
http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/24/america-philanthropy-income-oped-cx_ee_1226eaves.html
Who Gives and Who Doesn't?
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=2682730
Rush puts it best: With liberals, it's all about making people THINK they care. See the Will Smith interview in France.
-
Rush puts it best: With liberals, it's all about making people THINK they care. See the Will Smith interview in France.
LOL ;D
-
LOL ;D
Try getting the "pay your fair share" liberals to answer how much money should be taken (percentage-wise) from the rich.
When the French reporters said 75%, Will Smith clammed up quickly.
-
Try getting the "pay your fair share" liberals to answer how much money should be taken (percentage-wise) from the rich.
When the French reporters said 75%, Will Smith clammed up quickly.
"God Bless America" ;D
-
If left to our own devices.. and not taxed for social welfare, do you think our less fortnate would be better taken care of.
Also.. i do realize ( i forgot to think about this) that both sides are lacking in this. It was my mistake saying Conservatives were. The reason i put that was because of their views on social welfare programs.
I say that because here in Los Angeles County there are 250,000 millionaires and 85,000 homeless people.
-
If left to our own devices.. and not taxed for social welfare, do you think our less fortnate would be better taken care of.
Also.. i do realize ( i forgot to think about this) that both sides are lacking in this. It was my mistake saying Conservatives were. The reason i put that was because of their views on social welfare programs.
I say that because here in Los Angeles County there are 250,000 millionaires and 85,000 homeless people.
As the saying goes, the poor ain't poor because the rich are rich.
How many homeless are drunks or strung out on crack?
Or they mismanaged their money or came to Cali thinking they'd be a rock star or an actor or the next Mr. Olympia?
-
As the saying goes, the poor ain't poor because the rich are rich.
How many homeless are drunks or strung out on crack?
Or they mismanaged their money or came to Cali thinking they'd be a rock star or an actor or the next Mr. Olympia?
LMAO
I hear you. But i have my own wierd views on giving to poor people. I just give. If they use it for crack or beer.. thasts on them.. but i still gave and what they do with it is up to them.
-
Loco already posted the verses that are plain as day. "Thou shalt not" lie with another man. You can only find that murky if you simply want to find a contradiction or ambiguity.
That's not the full verse or sentence, this is:
Leviticus 18:22
King James Version (KJV)
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
I think, that's says don't have sex at all
lol. Ozmo isn't a troll. I think he just has his mind made up. Doesn't really matter what the Bible says about it.
I don't really have my mind made up but instead am exploring the argument from the author's side. Like for example the flaws in both yours and loco's verses which i got no counter point from either of you. Just loco playing games.
Like i said i get it's strongly suggested as a no no in the Bible, i just don't see that's its clear and direct and now understands the author of the article's view point and why.
Loco is just needling me with the troll thing lol. no worries.
-
I think homosexuality can include the love and compassion that one feels for their significant other. The close companionship that can come only through love. The phrase "life partner" comes to mind here. I'm also thinking of the first homosexual couple who got married in.....new york city I think. The two women who were in their late 80s. Let's take them for our example. Let's say that sex is no longer on their minds (they've matured past the stepping stone of sex to what sex leads to, which is the closest of relationships). They have that feeling towards a member of their own sex, so I would say they are homosexuals.
Let's keep the discussion (at least in your or any other responses towards me) limited to these two women in their late 80s. They don't experience lust anymore. They don't have sex (in our scenario). They just feel the closeness that only deep love can bring. My point is that nothing in the bible says THAT is wrong. In order to prove that the two late 80 year olds are living in sin, you would have to say something like "well, they used to have sex" or "they used to lust" which would be avoiding my point.
Bump for someone to prove that homosexuality is a sin without appealing to lust or sex.
-
Bump for someone to prove that homosexuality is a sin without appealing to lust or sex.
Got that angle too.
-
LOL ;D
This thread is so funny. Homosexuals now trying to use the Bible to justify their lifestyle. Good luck with that!
Matthew 19:4-5
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’
5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?
Leviticus 18:22
Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
Romans 1:26-27
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
-
LOL ;D
This thread is so funny. Homosexuals now trying to use the Bible to justify their lifestyle. Good luck with that!
Matthew 19:4-5
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’
5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?
Leviticus 18:22
Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
Romans 1:26-27
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Which homosexuals would that be on this thread?
-
we are all descendants of Adam and Eve
Adam And Eve had two sons.
One son killed the other
God ordered Abraham to kill his son Issac
Jonah was the seaman swallowed by the whale (gender unreported)
Mary gave birth to Jesus without having sex
Joseph was the shotgun husband
Jesus mooched at home untill he left home at 30 and fell in with a dozen of seamen (is there a theme here?) and a female prostitute with a footfetish.
They upset the conservative establishment
He ignored death after being banged up on a wooden cross and disappeared some forty days later
Many Christians prefer the old testement to the new testement
Alot of Christian ritual involves the worship of conception with out sin
(many others prefer sin without conception)
Many christians fetishise an act of bdsm by way of the cross and some believe in deity canabalism but call it transubstanciation
and after all that some people get exited about queers and their doings
-
Matthew 19:4-5
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’
5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’
Yes, he made male and female, and yes males leave their parents and unite with wives. That is only inclusive, not exclusive. It doesn't say that males will unite only to wives or that women cant unite with women. Technically it's a prediction and not normative language.
Leviticus 18:22
Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
Again that's an appeal only to sex. Not deep love as I described earlier. The quote below addresses only lust and sex also.
Romans 1:26-27
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
My conclusion still stands. The Bible does not say that homosexuality is a sin. It discusses lust and sex only.
-
Mr. Magoo
That's the thing here, its hard for some people to accept that homosexuals can and do have anything other than a relationship based on unnatural sex. To do so, would put a face to it so to speak.
-
Yes, he made male and female, and yes males leave their parents and unite with wives. That is only inclusive, not exclusive. It doesn't say that males will unite only to wives or that women cant unite with women. Technically it's a prediction and not normative language.
Again that's an appeal only to sex. Not deep love as I described earlier. The quote below addresses only lust and sex also.
My conclusion still stands. The Bible does not say that homosexuality is a sin. It discusses lust and sex only.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
New King James Version (NKJV)
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
-
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
New King James Version (NKJV)
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
Still unclear and nor direct, although more direct i suppose. (not after actual research)
You forgot to post the footnote in your link:
Footnotes:
1 Corinthians 6:9 That is, catamites
What 's a Catamite? a boy who has a sexual relationship with a man.
cat·a·mite
[kat-uh-mahyt] Show IPA
noun: a boy or youth who is in a sexual relationship with a man.
Which is different than 2 men having a sexual relationship. And in this verse, the BOY is unrighteous not the man. Interesting lol.
Let's look at the KVJ version:
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
ef·fem·i·nate
[adj. ih-fem-uh-nit; v. ih-fem-uh-neyt] Show IPA adjective, verb, ef·fem·i·nat·ed, ef·fem·i·nat·ing.
adjective
1.
(of a man or boy) having traits, tastes, habits, etc., traditionally considered feminine, as softness or delicacy.
Interesting isn't it? Looks like intellectual dishonesty here among interpretors
Clearly they are talking about boys who act like girls not going to heaven.
They are NOT clearly talking about homosexuals and NOT clearly saying homosexuality is a sin.
I am sure there is a verse in the Bible that clearly states homosexuality is a sin, isn't there?
-
Still unclear and nor direct, although more direct i suppose. (not after actual research)
You forgot to post the footnote in your link:
Footnotes:
1 Corinthians 6:9 That is, catamites
What 's a Catamite? a boy who has a sexual relationship with a man.
cat·a·mite
[kat-uh-mahyt] Show IPA
noun: a boy or youth who is in a sexual relationship with a man.
Which is different than 2 men having a sexual relationship. And in this verse, the BOY is unrighteous not the man. Interesting lol.
Let's look at the KVJ version:
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
ef·fem·i·nate
[adj. ih-fem-uh-nit; v. ih-fem-uh-neyt] Show IPA adjective, verb, ef·fem·i·nat·ed, ef·fem·i·nat·ing.
adjective
1.
(of a man or boy) having traits, tastes, habits, etc., traditionally considered feminine, as softness or delicacy.
Interesting isn't it? Looks like intellectual dishonesty here among interpretors
Clearly they are talking about boys who act like girls not going to heaven.
They are NOT clearly talking about homosexuals and NOT clearly saying homosexuality is a sin.
I am sure there is a verse in the Bible that clearly states homosexuality is a sin, isn't there?
LOL ;D
Troll
-
LOL ;D
Troll
yeah, run away from it coward. :D
-
yeah, run away from it coward. :D
Troll 8)
-
Yeah lets just ignore obvious lying and intellectual dishonesty and go ad hom.
Good for you loco. ;D
-
Yeah lets just ignore obvious lying and intellectual dishonesty and go ad hom.
Good for you loco. ;D
Troll :)
-
Troll :)
::)
Still unclear and nor direct, although more direct i suppose. (not after actual research)
You forgot to post the footnote in your link:
Footnotes:
1 Corinthians 6:9 That is, catamites
What 's a Catamite? a boy who has a sexual relationship with a man.
cat·a·mite
[kat-uh-mahyt] Show IPA
noun: a boy or youth who is in a sexual relationship with a man.
Which is different than 2 men having a sexual relationship. And in this verse, the BOY is unrighteous not the man. Interesting lol.
Let's look at the KVJ version:
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
ef·fem·i·nate
[adj. ih-fem-uh-nit; v. ih-fem-uh-neyt] Show IPA adjective, verb, ef·fem·i·nat·ed, ef·fem·i·nat·ing.
adjective
1.
(of a man or boy) having traits, tastes, habits, etc., traditionally considered feminine, as softness or delicacy.
Interesting isn't it? Looks like intellectual dishonesty here among interpretors
Clearly they are talking about boys who act like girls not going to heaven.
They are NOT clearly talking about homosexuals and NOT clearly saying homosexuality is a sin.
-
Still unclear and nor direct, although more direct i suppose. (not after actual research)
You forgot to post the footnote in your link:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
9 Don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be deceived: No sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, or anyone practicing homosexuality,(a)
10 no thieves, greedy people, drunkards, verbally abusive people, or swindlers will inherit God’s kingdom.
Footnotes:
a. 1 Corinthians 6:9 Lit adulterers, passive homosexual partners, active homosexual partners
Footnotes #2:
Troll :)
-
Mr. Magoo
That's the thing here, its hard for some people to accept that homosexuals can and do have anything other than a relationship based on unnatural sex. To do so, would put a face to it so to speak.
Yea, I hear a lot of arguments against homosexuals, etc, and it all seems to be based on the sex part (it's unnatural for man/man sex or women/women sex). But then when I saw the two 80 year old women on the news being the first lesbian couple to marry in new york, I think "wait.....what's sinful about that?"
I hope these same people don't think of male and female relationships completely in terms of sex and lust. :-\
-
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
9 Don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be deceived: No sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, or anyone practicing homosexuality,(a)
10 no thieves, greedy people, drunkards, verbally abusive people, or swindlers will inherit God’s kingdom.
Footnotes:
a. 1 Corinthians 6:9 Lit adulterers, passive homosexual partners, active homosexual partners
Footnotes #2:
Troll :)
::)
translated by more homophobes
Typical of most Christians, find another translation HAHAHAHAHAHAAH
Still unclear and nor direct, although more direct i suppose. (not after actual research)
You forgot to post the footnote in your link:
Footnotes:
1 Corinthians 6:9 That is, catamites
What 's a Catamite? a boy who has a sexual relationship with a man.
cat·a·mite
[kat-uh-mahyt] Show IPA
noun: a boy or youth who is in a sexual relationship with a man.
Which is different than 2 men having a sexual relationship. And in this verse, the BOY is unrighteous not the man. Interesting lol.
Let's look at the KVJ version:
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
ef·fem·i·nate
[adj. ih-fem-uh-nit; v. ih-fem-uh-neyt] Show IPA adjective, verb, ef·fem·i·nat·ed, ef·fem·i·nat·ing.
adjective
1.
(of a man or boy) having traits, tastes, habits, etc., traditionally considered feminine, as softness or delicacy.
Interesting isn't it? Looks like intellectual dishonesty here among interpretors
Clearly they are talking about boys who act like girls not going to heaven.
They are NOT clearly talking about homosexuals and NOT clearly saying homosexuality is a sin.
-
Yea, I hear a lot of arguments against homosexuals, etc, and it all seems to be based on the sex part (it's unnatural for man/man sex or women/women sex). But then when I saw the two 80 year old women on the news being the first lesbian couple to marry in new york, I think "wait.....what's sinful about that?"
I hope these same people don't think of male and female relationships completely in terms of sex and lust. :-\
-
Yea, I hear a lot of arguments against homosexuals, etc, and it all seems to be based on the sex part (it's unnatural for man/man sex or women/women sex). But then when I saw the two 80 year old women on the news being the first lesbian couple to marry in new york, I think "wait.....what's sinful about that?"
I hope these same people don't think of male and female relationships completely in terms of sex and lust. :-\
Grew up across the street from 2 gay guys in their 80's when they died. They had been together 50 years.
-
::)
translated by more homophobes
Typical of most Christians, find another translation HAHAHAHAHAHAAH
Still unclear and nor direct, although more direct i suppose. (not after actual research)
You forgot to post the footnote in your link:
Footnotes:
1 Corinthians 6:9 That is, catamites
What 's a Catamite? a boy who has a sexual relationship with a man.
cat·a·mite
[kat-uh-mahyt] Show IPA
noun: a boy or youth who is in a sexual relationship with a man.
Which is different than 2 men having a sexual relationship. And in this verse, the BOY is unrighteous not the man. Interesting lol.
Let's look at the KVJ version:
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
ef·fem·i·nate
[adj. ih-fem-uh-nit; v. ih-fem-uh-neyt] Show IPA adjective, verb, ef·fem·i·nat·ed, ef·fem·i·nat·ing.
adjective
1.
(of a man or boy) having traits, tastes, habits, etc., traditionally considered feminine, as softness or delicacy.
Interesting isn't it? Looks like intellectual dishonesty here among interpretors
Clearly they are talking about boys who act like girls not going to heaven.
They are NOT clearly talking about homosexuals and NOT clearly saying homosexuality is a sin.
I posted the different versions. Where are you getting your information from, troll?
-
I posted the different versions. Where are you getting your information from, troll?
Seriously loco, you are being pretty pathetic, kind of like a little cry baby bitch. KVJ, remember that one?
You forgot to post the footnote in your link:
Footnotes:
1 Corinthians 6:9 That is, catamites
What 's a Catamite? a boy who has a sexual relationship with a man.
cat·a·mite
[kat-uh-mahyt] Show IPA
noun: a boy or youth who is in a sexual relationship with a man.
Which is different than 2 men having a sexual relationship. And in this verse, the BOY is unrighteous not the man. Interesting lol.
Let's look at the KVJ version:
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
ef·fem·i·nate
[adj. ih-fem-uh-nit; v. ih-fem-uh-neyt] Show IPA adjective, verb, ef·fem·i·nat·ed, ef·fem·i·nat·ing.
adjective
1.
(of a man or boy) having traits, tastes, habits, etc., traditionally considered feminine, as softness or delicacy.
Interesting isn't it? Looks like intellectual dishonesty here among interpretors
Clearly they are talking about boys who act like girls not going to heaven.
They are NOT clearly talking about homosexuals and NOT clearly saying homosexuality is a sin.
-
I must have really struck a nerve with your faith.
-
Homosexuals now trying to use the Bible to justify their lifestyle. Good luck with that!
Matthew 19:4-5
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’
5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?
Leviticus 18:22
Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
Romans 1:26-27
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
9 Don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be deceived: No sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, or anyone practicing homosexuality,(a)
10 no thieves, greedy people, drunkards, verbally abusive people, or swindlers will inherit God’s kingdom.
Footnotes:
a. 1 Corinthians 6:9 Lit adulterers, passive homosexual partners, active homosexual partners
Footnotes #2:
Troll :)
-
Like i said, i must have struck a nerve with you faith.
Sorry.
-
Seriously loco, you are being pretty pathetic, kind of like a little cry baby bitch. KVJ, remember that one?
You forgot to post the footnote in your link:
Footnotes:
1 Corinthians 6:9 That is, catamites
What 's a Catamite? a boy who has a sexual relationship with a man.
cat·a·mite
[kat-uh-mahyt] Show IPA
noun: a boy or youth who is in a sexual relationship with a man.
And that's not homosexuality? LOL ;D
Troll
-
Homosexuals now trying to use the Bible to justify their lifestyle. Good luck with that!
Matthew 19:4-5
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’
5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?
Leviticus 18:22
Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
Romans 1:26-27
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
9 Don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be deceived: No sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, or anyone practicing homosexuality,(a)
10 no thieves, greedy people, drunkards, verbally abusive people, or swindlers will inherit God’s kingdom.
Footnotes:
a. 1 Corinthians 6:9 Lit adulterers, passive homosexual partners, active homosexual partners
Footnotes #2:
Troll :)
-
And that's not homosexuality? LOL ;D
Troll
You are really asking that question?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Sorry loco, i didn't mean to do this to you. Frankly i thought you could put up a good legit argument and it wouldn't affect your faith.
-
Its amazing how much of a little cry baby you are acting like.
-
You are really asking that question?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Sorry loco, i didn't mean to do this to you. Frankly i thought you could put up a good legit argument and it wouldn't affect your faith.
A male having sex with another male is not homosexuality? ::)
Troll
-
A male having sex with another male is not homosexuality? ::)
Troll
Go back and re-read the original post.
And IF you want to engage in a adult discussion I am more than happy to, But stop this ad hom or forget it.
-
Go back and re-read the original post.
And IF you want to engage in a adult discussion I am more than happy to, But stop this ad hom or forget it.
Troll ;D
-
Troll ;D
IF you are right, doesn't God deserve a better representative?
-
OzmO answering a very simple question:
;D
-
IF you are right, doesn't God deserve a better representative?
He deserves a more mature representative lol. What a cry baby.
-
IF you are right, doesn't God deserve a better representative?
Are you saying that I am not a good representative just for calling a troll a troll?
-
Its amazing how much of a little cry baby you are acting like.
bump
-
Are you saying that I am not a good representative just for calling a troll a troll?
No. I'm saying you are not a good representative because you are not putting in the effort, time, patience, kindness, etc.
-
Troll ;D
Bump :D
-
No. I'm saying you are not a good representative because you are not putting in the effort, time, patience, kindness, etc.
I do not feed the troll.
-
Typical, loco acting like a little drama queen again when he gets overwhelmed in debate.
-
Typical, loco acting like a little drama queen again when he gets overwhelmed in debate.
Typical OzmO troll ;D
-
Even an honest, atheist Bible scholar(yes they exist) would never deny that the Bible clearly says that homosexuality is a sin.
New International Version (NIV)
Matthew 19:4-5
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’
5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?
Leviticus 18:22
Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
Romans 1:26-27
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
1 Corinthians 6:9
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men
1 Timothy 1:8-10
8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly.
9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,
10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine
-
Finding more translations to suit your beliefs.
-
Finding more translations to suit your beliefs.
Yes, OzmO, the many large teams of multinational, multilingual, interdenominational translators, scholars, linguists, historians, archeologists, etc. that were involved in giving us the KJV, NKJV, NIV, HCSB, Reina-Valera(RVR), etc. over the centuries and recent decades were all in on some dishonest, homophobic conspiracy. ::)
1 Corintios 6:9
Reina-Valera 1995 (RVR1995)
9 żNo sabéis que los injustos no heredarán el reino de Dios? No os engańéis: ni los fornicarios, ni los idólatras, ni los adúlteros, ni los afeminados, ni los homosexuales,
Keep on trolling! ;D
-
Yes, OzmO, the many large teams of multinational, multilingual, interdenominational translators, scholars, linguists, historians, archeologists, etc. that were involved in giving us the KJV, NKJV, NIV, HCSB, Reina-Valera(RVR), etc. over the centuries and recent decades were all in on some dishonest, homophobic conspiracy. ::)
1 Corintios 6:9
Reina-Valera 1995 (RVR1995)
9 żNo sabéis que los injustos no heredarán el reino de Dios? No os engańéis: ni los fornicarios, ni los idólatras, ni los adúlteros, ni los afeminados, ni los homosexuales,
Keep on trolling! ;D
Not what I am saying ::)
-
Seriously loco, you are being pretty pathetic, kind of like a little cry baby bitch. KVJ, remember that one?
You forgot to post the footnote in your link:
Footnotes:
1 Corinthians 6:9 That is, catamites
What 's a Catamite? a boy who has a sexual relationship with a man.
cat·a·mite
[kat-uh-mahyt] Show IPA
noun: a boy or youth who is in a sexual relationship with a man.
Which is different than 2 men having a sexual relationship. And in this verse, the BOY is unrighteous not the man. Interesting lol.
Let's look at the KVJ version:
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
ef·fem·i·nate
[adj. ih-fem-uh-nit; v. ih-fem-uh-neyt] Show IPA adjective, verb, ef·fem·i·nat·ed, ef·fem·i·nat·ing.
adjective
1.
(of a man or boy) having traits, tastes, habits, etc., traditionally considered feminine, as softness or delicacy.
Interesting isn't it? Looks like intellectual dishonesty here among interpretors
Clearly they are talking about boys who act like girls not going to heaven.
They are NOT clearly talking about homosexuals and NOT clearly saying homosexuality is a sin.
Once again, Ozmo, you duck one simple point which skewers your position.
Sex outside of marriage: SIN!
Marriage components: Male and Female.
It doesn't get much simpler than that.
So, a boy-man sexual relationship is outside those paramaters. A man-man sexual relationship is outside those parameters.
-
Once again, Ozmo, you duck one simple point which skewers your position.
Sex outside of marriage: SIN!
Marriage components: Male and Female.
It doesn't get much simpler than that.
So, a boy-man sexual relationship is outside those paramaters. A man-man sexual relationship is outside those parameters.
Incorrect.
You are not getting what i am saying. A man on man relationship being a sin is not clearly stated in the Bible. It is simply suggested in a murky unclear way. Thou salt not kill is clearly stated. Homosexual relationships are not. (no need for me to re-post my arguments)
PS: by the same logic used in many of the arguments against mine, so is eating shrimp.
-
Incorrect.
You are not getting what i am saying. A man on man relationship being a sin is not clearly stated in the Bible. It is simply suggested in a murky unclear way. Thou salt not kill is clearly stated. Homosexual relationships are not. (no need for me to re-post my arguments)
PS: by the same logic used in many of the arguments against mine, so is eating shrimp.
There's nothing murky about it. Lev. 18 and 20 are as plain as day on that issue.
As for your shrimp comparison, let's see:
Penalty for eating shrimp: Quarantine for 12-24 hours
Penalty for homosexuality (i.e. a man lying with a man as he would lie with a woman)......DEATH!!!
Hmmmm...which one was the bigger offense?
-
There's nothing murky about it. Lev. 18 and 20 are as plain as day on that issue.
As for your shrimp comparison, let's see:
Penalty for eating shrimp: Quarantine for 12-24 hours
Penalty for homosexuality (i.e. a man lying with a man as he would lie with a woman)......DEATH!!!
Hmmmm...which one was the bigger offense?
and if you eat a homosexual shrimp?
-
There's nothing murky about it. Lev. 18 and 20 are as plain as day on that issue.
As for your shrimp comparison, let's see:
Penalty for eating shrimp: Quarantine for 12-24 hours
Penalty for homosexuality (i.e. a man lying with a man as he would lie with a woman)......DEATH!!!
Hmmmm...which one was the bigger offense?
Wrong again. Perhaps with the law of that particular land back then.
Through out history I don't see homosexuals dying upon their first or last sexual encounter. It would an epidemic in Palm Springs today!
As for the verse. Its murky because it can be taken 2 different ways.
However, Eating shrimp is an abomination they don't have fins and scales. :)
-
Maybe you can help loco.
Is there anything in the Bible that directly says Homosexuality is a sin?
Matthew 19:4-5
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’
5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?
Leviticus 18:22
Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
Romans 1:26-27
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
1 Corinthians 6:9
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men
1 Timothy 1:8-10
8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly.
9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,
10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine
Leviticus 20:13
If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
But it is still murky:
LOL ;D
-
Homosexuals now trying to use the Bible to justify their lifestyle. Good luck with that!
Matthew 19:4-5
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’
5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?
Leviticus 18:22
Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
Romans 1:26-27
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
9 Don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be deceived: No sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, or anyone practicing homosexuality,(a)
10 no thieves, greedy people, drunkards, verbally abusive people, or swindlers will inherit God’s kingdom.
Footnotes:
a. 1 Corinthians 6:9 Lit adulterers, passive homosexual partners, active homosexual partners
Footnotes #2:
Troll :)
And this one:
Jude 1:6-7
New King James Version (NKJV)
6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jude+1%3A6-7&version=NKJV
-
And this one:
Jude 1:6-7
New King James Version (NKJV)
6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jude+1%3A6-7&version=NKJV
Still unclear and murky. The story of Sodom is one of the authors arguments. Sexual immorality and strange flesh could mean many things. However a calamite and a effeminate are very specific things in which they do not define homosexuals, but instead possible aspects of homosexuality.
What about these verses?
Luke 17:34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
Luke 17:35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Luke 17:36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
-
Still unclear and murky. The story of Sodom is one of the authors arguments. Sexual immorality and strange flesh could mean many things.
What about these verses?
Luke 17:34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
Luke 17:35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Luke 17:36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
It's only unclear and murky if you want it to be. The Bible's view on homosexuality is as plain as El Vira's cleavage. (Am I dating myself?) The author has no credibility as I pointed out in my first post in this thread. Made a false statement to try and support a false conclusion. You should go back to using that "evil Bible" website. Might be a little more reliable. But not by much. :)
What about those verses? They have zero to do with homosexuality.
-
It's only unclear and murky if you want it to be. The Bible's view on homosexuality is as plain as El Vira's cleavage. (Am I dating myself?) The author has no credibility as I pointed out in my first post in this thread. Made a false statement to try and support a false conclusion. You should go back to using that "evil Bible" website. Might be a little more reliable. But not by much. :)
What about those verses? They have zero to do with homosexuality.
Lol you are dating yourself, and because i know you are I am also dating myself.
I am not using the evil bible web site. lol. I am just pointing out murky-ness. Strange flesh and sexual immorality could mean different things. Do you not agree? So all sexual morality means homosexuality? what about pedophilia? What about incest? What about infidelity? Aren't those also immoral?
As for strange flesh....isn't whoring around a practice of going after strange flesh? How about having sex with a random hooker? isn't that going after strange flesh? what about randomly picking up someone in a night club? isn't that strange flesh?
If all those things could have other meanings how could it be clear?
Then add those verses i listed and it gets more murky. There's more too.
-
Lol you are dating yourself, and because i know you are I am also dating myself.
I am not using the evil bible web site. lol. I am just pointing out murky-ness. Strange flesh and sexual immorality could mean different things. Do you not agree? So all sexual morality means homosexuality? what about pedophilia? What about incest? What about infidelity? Aren't those also immoral?
As for strange flesh....isn't whoring around a practice of going after strange flesh? How about having sex with a random hooker? isn't that going after strange flesh? what about randomly picking up someone in a night club? isn't that strange flesh?
If all those things could have other meanings how could it be clear?
Then add those verses i listed and it gets more murky. There's more too.
You have to read a number of verses on the same subject, in the proper context, to get a reasonable understanding of any given subject. For example, reading the phrase "strange flesh" by itself could mean beastality, etc. But comparing that passage to the others quoted in this thread makes it obvious the reference is to homosexuality.
You can always find questions if you want. They might be unreasonable, but you can find ambiguity anywhere.
Those verses you quoted are not talking about homosexuality. Read the whole chapter.
-
You have to read a number of verses on the same subject, in the proper context, to get a reasonable understanding of any given subject. For example, reading the phrase "strange flesh" by itself could mean beastality, etc. But comparing that passage to the others quoted in this thread makes it obvious the reference is to homosexuality.
You can always find questions if you want. They might be unreasonable, but you can find ambiguity anywhere.
Those verses you quoted are not talking about homosexuality. Read the whole chapter.
Women grinding on each other in bed is not homosexuality?
-
Women grinding on each other in bed is not homosexuality?
Lol. Read the chapter. Not even remotely talking about lesbians. Grinding = cooking.
-
Lol. Read the chapter. Not even remotely talking about lesbians. Grinding = cooking.
lol ok and 2 men in one bed?
-
lol ok and 2 men in one bed?
What about it? Are you saying that verse says two men are homosexuals sleeping together and is an endorsement of homosexuality?
-
What about it? Are you saying that verse says two men are homosexuals sleeping together and is an endorsement of homosexuality?
nope i am saying its unclear. :)
-
nope i am saying its unclear. :)
Not to me. But I've read the chapter, so the verse in its proper context, is crystal clear.
-
Not to me. But I've read the chapter, so the verse in its proper context, is crystal clear.
I get its clear to you. To most staunch Christians all the verses regarding homosexuality will be. But overall, in all references, it's not, and that's just another example to me of it not being clear.
So far i haven't seen a direct clear one. Some have come close but could be taken as another meaning.
-
I get its clear to you. To most staunch Christians all the verses regarding homosexuality will be. But overall, in all references, it's not, and that's just another example to me of it not being clear.
So far i haven't seen a direct clear one. Some have come close but could be taken as another meaning.
You don't have to be a staunch Christian to read Bible passages objectively, especially on this subject. There are other subjects with much more room for reasonable debate and discussion than this, like divorce, drinking, drugs, etc.
-
You don't have to be a staunch Christian to read Bible passages objectively, especially on this subject. There are other subjects with much more room for reasonable debate and discussion than this, like divorce, drinking, drugs, etc.
Not saying you do need to be a staunch christian to read the passages objectively. I am suggesting the opposite. What i am saying is that a staunch christian will likely always see them that way regardless. I think this is a good topic for a debate considering the age when the Bible was written and the men who wrote it and the lack of directness combined with some of the translations.
-
Not saying you do need to be a staunch christian to read the passages objectively. I am suggesting the opposite. What i am saying is that a staunch christian will likely always see them that way regardless. I think this is a good topic for a debate considering the age when the Bible was written and the men who wrote it and the lack of directness combined with some of the translations.
Staunch/devout Christians do not always agree. I see some things differently than my wife, my pastor, and some church members. Just not on this subject.
Morality doesn't change with the passage of time. Or least it shouldn't.
-
Staunch/devout Christians do not always agree. I see some things differently than my wife, my pastor, and some church members. Just not on this subject.
Morality doesn't change with the passage of time. Or least it shouldn't.
I kind of disagree when it comes to non victimized actions and many things in the OT.
Things like deceit, murder, rape, theft, adultery etc should always be immoral.
-
I kind of disagree when it comes to non victimized actions and many things in the OT.
Things like deceit, murder, rape, theft, adultery etc should always be immoral.
I'm not sure there are victimless sins? The individual always harms himself in some way.
I agree about the items you mentioned, but if you want to find ambiguity you can say the command says don't kill, which would preclude self defense or the defense of others. There is nothing about the age of consent for sex. What about stealing or lying as part of a covert military or law enforcement operation? Always something you can argue about.
-
Morality doesn't change with the passage of time. Or least it shouldn't.
Nonsense. Morality is a way of distinguishing the "good" from the "bad." Not only are there many such systems of morality, but they have all been changing and continue to change. There's no universal, immutable morality, and if you think there is, I would ask that you define that system for us.
-
Nonsense. Morality is a way of distinguishing the "good" from the "bad." Not only are there many such systems of morality, but they have all been changing and continue to change. There's no universal, immutable morality, and if you think there is, I would ask that you define that system for us.
Oh please. There are certain things that are universally immoral, including rape, child molestation, elder abuse, abuse of the disabled, etc.
-
What does the bible say about dinosaurs?
-
Oh please. There are certain things that are universally immoral, including rape, child molestation, elder abuse, abuse of the disabled, etc.
Even if that is the case, that still doesn't make morality immutable and universal, which is what you said:
Morality doesn't change with the passage of time. Or least it shouldn't.
You are, essentially, saying "This is universally immoral. Therefore, morality is universal and immutable." This is a logical fallacy known as an "irrelevant conclusion."
You are also making two very big assumptions: The first is that these acts are universally considered immoral; in many cultures today, rape isn't seen as immoral, since women are seen as sexual toys. The second assumption, on top of the first, is that they always have been and that just isn't the case. For example, many cultures disposed of mentally or physically disabled infants.
You can argue that those acts are wrong today and were wrong millenia ago, it's just that humanity wasn't as morally evolved then. But that makes my point all the more salient: morality is a set of codes undergoing constant change. I can certainly agree that a kind of "ideal" universal morality might be possible in the sense that once you take everything the answer depends on and consider it a part of the question, the answer is necessarily inherent in the question.
In other words if you could somehow include everything that morality can depend on, perhaps you could define an "ideal" universal and immutable morality. But can you do that? It's a very big if.
-
In other words if you could somehow include everything that morality can depend on, perhaps you could define an "ideal" universal and immutable morality. But can you do that? It's a very big if.
Right, and then someone of your or my (I'm assuming we agree) disposition can deploy the Euthyphro Dilemma on poor little Beach Bum: either those moral laws exist without God or otherwise they are utterly arbitrary and based on his whim. If they are truly immutable then they cannot be based on God's whim, since his whim could change (and, by definition, the immutable laws are not subject to change). So the Christian's god ends up being totally superfluous when it comes to morality because the immutable laws are all there without him.
But all of this assumes Beach Bum could ever formulate a sensible universal and immutable morality. Beach Bum, maybe you can begin by defining "good," "bad," "right," and "wrong." You're throwing around these ethical terms like its obvious what they mean but appearances can be deceiving. Maybe you can succeed where some of the smartest people in human history failed (e.g., Aristotle, Kant, J.S. Mill) and can clearly tell us skeptics what universal morality looks like!
-
I'm not sure there are victimless sins? The individual always harms himself in some way.
I agree about the items you mentioned, but if you want to find ambiguity you can say the command says don't kill, which would preclude self defense or the defense of others. There is nothing about the age of consent for sex. What about stealing or lying as part of a covert military or law enforcement operation? Always something you can argue about.
The difference is they are victims by choice. For example if someone wants to do meth, they do it by choice. If someone gets raped its not by choice. Of course meth is bad for you, but so are cigarettes, transfat, too much salt etc.
-
Even if that is the case, that still doesn't make morality immutable and universal, which is what you said:
You are, essentially, saying "This is universally immoral. Therefore, morality is universal and immutable." This is a logical fallacy known as an "irrelevant conclusion."
You are also making two very big assumptions: The first is that these acts are universally considered immoral; in many cultures today, rape isn't seen as immoral, since women are seen as sexual toys. The second assumption, on top of the first, is that they always have been and that just isn't the case. For example, many cultures disposed of mentally or physically disabled infants.
You can argue that those acts are wrong today and were wrong millenia ago, it's just that humanity wasn't as morally evolved then. But that makes my point all the more salient: morality is a set of codes undergoing constant change. I can certainly agree that a kind of "ideal" universal morality might be possible in the sense that once you take everything the answer depends on and consider it a part of the question, the answer is necessarily inherent in the question.
In other words if you could somehow include everything that morality can depend on, perhaps you could define an "ideal" universal and immutable morality. But can you do that? It's a very big if.
Yes, it is "immutable" and "universal," regardless of whether some cultures are bass-akwards. Child rape is immoral. There was never a time earth's history when it was moral, regardless of whether people did it. It's an accepted part of some parts of Muslim culture, but it's still immoral. Wrong is wrong. Doesn't matter whether some people get it twisted.
-
The difference is they are victims by choice. For example if someone wants to do meth, they do it by choice. If someone gets raped its not by choice. Of course meth is bad for you, but so are cigarettes, transfat, too much salt etc.
A victim by choice is still a victim.
-
A victim by choice is still a victim.
That's where the line is. Choice.
-
That's where the line is. Choice.
Wait. What are we talking about? lol :)
-
Yes, it is "immutable" and "universal," regardless of whether some cultures are bass-akwards. Child rape is immoral. There was never a time earth's history when it was moral, regardless of whether people did it. It's an accepted part of some parts of Muslim culture, but it's still immoral. Wrong is wrong. Doesn't matter whether some people get it twisted.
Even if that was the case - all you've shown is that child rape is immoral. Not that morality itself is immutable or universal. Please don't misunderstand: I agree that child rape is immoral and heinous. And that is the problem: it's something pretty much everyone agrees with. Which is why such cases don't serve as good examples and have little probative value in the context of this debate. So perhaps we could use another example, that showcases moral ambiguity?
Consider, for example, the following: after years of painstaking work, someone finally manages to create a sentient computer program. Unfortunately, the program cannot be stopped, as it will not function again; realizing this the sentient program resists efforts to terminate its execution. Is it moral for us to unplug the computer and kill the program? What does your universal and immutable morality have to say about this and how does it square with the property right of the person on whose computer the sentient program is executing?
And since you seem to talk with such moral certainty, I'm curious, how exactly do you define right and wrong? Surely if morality is absolute you should have no problem with this question. Please don't give me examples of what's right and wrong. I want specific, concrete definitions, that I can apply to any instance and which will determine whether an action is right or wrong without fail.
I'm not sure there are victimless sins? The individual always harms himself in some way.
According to Catholic doctrine, artificial birth control is a sin. So under Catholic doctrine, a Catholic husband who has sex with his wife and wears a condom is committing a sin. Is the husband harmed? Is the wife harmed? Who is the victim here?
Or, better still, consider the following example: a newlywed couple moves into the house next door. You happen to be coming back from the gym, and catch a glimpse of the wife. You find her extremely attractive. In the shower, you jerk off thinking about fucking her, but you never make a move on her. You have coveted your neighbor's wife. Who is the victim, who has been harmed and how?
-
Even if that was the case - all you've shown is that child rape is immoral. Not that morality itself is immutable or universal. Please don't misunderstand: I agree that child rape is immoral and heinous. And that is the problem: it's something pretty much everyone agrees with. Which is why such cases don't serve as good examples and have little probative value in the context of this debate. So perhaps we could use another example, that showcases moral ambiguity?
Consider, for example, the following: after years of painstaking work, someone finally manages to create a sentient computer program. Unfortunately, the program cannot be stopped, as it will not function again; realizing this the sentient program resists efforts to terminate its execution. Is it moral for us to unplug the computer and kill the program? What does your universal and immutable morality have to say about this and how does it square with the property right of the person on whose computer the sentient program is executing?
And since you seem to talk with such moral certainty, I'm curious, how exactly do you define right and wrong? Surely if morality is absolute you should have no problem with this question. Please don't give me examples of what's right and wrong. I want specific, concrete definitions, that I can apply to any instance and which will determine whether an action is right or wrong without fail.
According to Catholic doctrine, artificial birth control is a sin. So under Catholic doctrine, a Catholic husband who has sex with his wife and wears a condom is committing a sin. Is the husband harmed? Is the wife harmed? Who is the victim here?
Or, better still, consider the following example: a newlywed couple moves into the house next door. You happen to be coming back from the gym, and catch a glimpse of the wife. You find her extremely attractive. In the shower, you jerk off thinking about fucking her, but you never make a move on her. You have coveted your neighbor's wife. Who is the victim, who has been harmed and how?
You're talking about of both sides of your mouth. Child rape is immoral because it's wrong. You agree it's wrong, but in the next breath say morality cannot be immutable or universal. So which is it?
Child rape isn't wrong because "pretty much everyone agrees" it's wrong. It's immoral because, based on your common sense, a reasonable person knows it's wrong to harm a child. And you don't need the Bible or some philosopher to tell you that. As Drinking with Bob says, it's "common freaking sense." Same with the other things I mentioned: child abuse, elder abuse, etc. You don't want to talk about those, because you know there isn't a reasonable argument to say it is not flat out wrong (or immoral) to abuse an elderly person, a disabled person, etc.
You'd rather bring up a "sentient computer program." I have no idea what that is.
I'm not a moral skeptic. Most people are not. When you start talking about things that are unquestionably immoral, like child rape, skepticism disappears. Except for people who belong to NAMBLA . . . .
There are things that fall into gray areas, but that doesn't change the fact that there are absolutes. You just agreed with one.
Regarding victims, anytime a person does something that violates that person's conscience, they have compromised their belief system. There doesn't have to be some physical manifestation of "harm." What could (and probably often does) happen is rationalization, which leads to more compromise.
-
You're talking about of both sides of your mouth. Child rape is immoral because it's wrong. You agree it's wrong, but in the next breath say morality cannot be immutable or universal. So which is it?
A single instance of something being wrong doesn't make morality at large immutable or universal. It's like saying "I don't like pork. Pork is meat. Therefore I don't like meat."
Child rape isn't wrong because "pretty much everyone agrees" it's wrong.
I didn't say it was wrong because pretty much everyone agrees its wrong. I said that pretty much everyone agrees it's wrong.
It's immoral because, based on your common sense, a reasonable person knows it's wrong to harm a child.
Why? Why is it wrong to harm a child? You are making the point that morality is absolute, so common sense has nothing to do with it. What's the inherent reason that makes you say that it's wrong to harm a child? There's a ton of things you could give as the reason. I want to understand what your understanding of morality is, and what causes you to say it's absolute and immutable.
Same with the other things I mentioned: child abuse, elder abuse, etc. You don't want to talk about those, because you know there isn't a reasonable argument to say it is not flat out wrong (or immoral) to abuse an elderly person, a disabled person, etc.
No, that's not why. It's because if we use examples where the answer is clear-cut, we gain little insight. But if you insist, I can play the devil's advocate. I'll start right now: Abusing elders is perfectly fine. They've lived a full life, and once they reached a certain age, they need to have any valuable nutrients and organs extracted, and they must be euthanized and incinerated to make room for the rest of us. Why is this stand immoral?
I'm not a moral skeptic. Most people are not. When you start talking about things that are unquestionably immoral, like child rape, skepticism disappears. Except for people who belong to NAMBLA . . . .
Right. And that's why I wanted to use other examples. I stated it pretty clearly: "And that is the problem: it's something pretty much everyone agrees with. Which is why such cases don't serve as good examples and have little probative value in the context of this debate. So perhaps we could use another example, that showcases moral ambiguity?"
There are things that fall into gray areas, but that doesn't change the fact that there are absolutes. You just agreed with one.
If there are gray areas, then morality cannot be absolute because a single instance of an item that falls in this gray area makes morality non-absolute. For morality to be absolute there must not be any grey areas at all and everything must be clearly either moral or immoral. In more mathematical terms, given the equation "x / x = 1" the answer "x = 0" is enough to show that it isn't true; to show that it's true, it's not enough to say "well, it's valid for 1 and 2 and 3 and ... 541894891894501041487956 67 and 541894891894501041487956 68 and ...". You must show that's it's true for EVERY number.
Now, what I agreed with is that pretty much everyone finds certain acts to be immoral and heinous. That's a fact, but that doesn't make morality itself absolute. See the "x / x = 1" example above of why it doesn't.
As for those who don't find those acts immoral and heinous - sometimes it is because they are insane and other times because their particular morality is different somehow. Let's ignore the people who are insane, since there's no point in discussing about them. Let's talk about the other group. Consider a group of people, who have, for all their recorded history, gathered all the males of age and had them engage in fights to the death to decide who will marry the chief's daughter and become the new Chief. The daughter has no say in the matter. And how many immoral acts do you see with this setup? And why are they immoral?
Regarding victims, anytime a person does something that violates that person's conscience, they have compromised their belief system. There doesn't have to be some physical manifestation of "harm." What could (and probably often does) happen is rationalization, which leads to more compromise.
Now who's talking out of both sides of the mouth? You said there's no victimless sins, now you're talking about compromising and violating a person's conscience. Nobody is forcing the Catholic couple in my example to use birth control. It's a sin according to Catholic doctrine, so when they do it, according to you there's a victim. Who is it? Nobody is forcing you to pump one off in the shower thinking about your neighbors' wife. It's a sin according to the Bible, so when you do it, according to you there's a victim. Who is it?
And to take one more step: are all sinful acts immoral? And, conversely, are all immoral acts sins?
-
Wait. What are we talking about? lol :)
lol (i know you are getting it from a couple other directions now) We were talking the line between what is moral and what is not as it relates to sin. My contention is that using the victim principle, morality in most cases, is easily defined. I think your argument is that morality is defined in the bible. Not sure, its been a few days :)
-
If the bible teaches morality, then why do Christians ignore some of it?
If you ignore parts of the bible, then you are obviously using a higher moral code to interpret what is acceptable.
If you really believed the bible, you would own slaves and beat them, as long as they didn't die within one day.
-
If the bible teaches morality, then why do Christians ignore some of it?
Christians aren't perfect but they are forgiven
If you ignore parts of the bible, then you are obviously using a higher moral code to interpret what is acceptable.
Don't know what you mean here
If you really believed the bible, you would own slaves and beat them, as long as they didn't die within one day.
They weren't slaves, they were people who owed money. god would never condone slavery, hence when you read the word slave in the bible you really didn't read the word slave.
-
Christians aren't perfect but they are forgiven
That doesn't answer the question; what it does, is look like a Jedi mind trick, without the Jedi.
Don't know what you mean here
Do you accept every single word, in the whole Bible, as an inerrant truth? If you don't, you're using some criteria to decide what is to be considered and used and what isn't. What does that mean when you consider the fact that the Bible, according to itself, teaches God's divine morality?
god would never condone slavery
No, of course not... God would never condone slav...
“Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever.” – Leviticus 25:44-46
Oh! :-[
-
That doesn't answer the question; what it does, is look like a Jedi mind trick, without the Jedi.
Do you accept every single word, in the whole Bible, as an inerrant truth? If you don't, you're using some criteria to decide what is to be considered and used and what isn't. What does that mean when you consider the fact that the Bible, according to itself, teaches God's divine morality?
No, of course not... God would never condone slav...
“Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever.” – Leviticus 25:44-46
Oh! :-[
This
-
lol (i know you are getting it from a couple other directions now) We were talking the line between what is moral and what is not as it relates to sin. My contention is that using the victim principle, morality in most cases, is easily defined. I think your argument is that morality is defined in the bible. Not sure, its been a few days :)
Ah so. Thanks. I didn't say morality is defined in the Bible. Or at least I don't think I said that. lol
I think my point was/is that things that are immoral are always immoral. That's different from laws, cultural practices, etc. Not everything that is illegal is immoral.
-
A single instance of something being wrong doesn't make morality at large immutable or universal. It's like saying "I don't like pork. Pork is meat. Therefore I don't like meat."
I didn't say it was wrong because pretty much everyone agrees its wrong. I said that pretty much everyone agrees it's wrong.
Why? Why is it wrong to harm a child? You are making the point that morality is absolute, so common sense has nothing to do with it. What's the inherent reason that makes you say that it's wrong to harm a child? There's a ton of things you could give as the reason. I want to understand what your understanding of morality is, and what causes you to say it's absolute and immutable.
No, that's not why. It's because if we use examples where the answer is clear-cut, we gain little insight. But if you insist, I can play the devil's advocate. I'll start right now: Abusing elders is perfectly fine. They've lived a full life, and once they reached a certain age, they need to have any valuable nutrients and organs extracted, and they must be euthanized and incinerated to make room for the rest of us. Why is this stand immoral?
Right. And that's why I wanted to use other examples. I stated it pretty clearly: "And that is the problem: it's something pretty much everyone agrees with. Which is why such cases don't serve as good examples and have little probative value in the context of this debate. So perhaps we could use another example, that showcases moral ambiguity?"
If there are gray areas, then morality cannot be absolute because a single instance of an item that falls in this gray area makes morality non-absolute. For morality to be absolute there must not be any grey areas at all and everything must be clearly either moral or immoral. In more mathematical terms, given the equation "x / x = 1" the answer "x = 0" is enough to show that it isn't true; to show that it's true, it's not enough to say "well, it's valid for 1 and 2 and 3 and ... 541894891894501041487956 67 and 541894891894501041487956 68 and ...". You must show that's it's true for EVERY number.
Now, what I agreed with is that pretty much everyone finds certain acts to be immoral and heinous. That's a fact, but that doesn't make morality itself absolute. See the "x / x = 1" example above of why it doesn't.
As for those who don't find those acts immoral and heinous - sometimes it is because they are insane and other times because their particular morality is different somehow. Let's ignore the people who are insane, since there's no point in discussing about them. Let's talk about the other group. Consider a group of people, who have, for all their recorded history, gathered all the males of age and had them engage in fights to the death to decide who will marry the chief's daughter and become the new Chief. The daughter has no say in the matter. And how many immoral acts do you see with this setup? And why are they immoral?
Now who's talking out of both sides of the mouth? You said there's no victimless sins, now you're talking about compromising and violating a person's conscience. Nobody is forcing the Catholic couple in my example to use birth control. It's a sin according to Catholic doctrine, so when they do it, according to you there's a victim. Who is it? Nobody is forcing you to pump one off in the shower thinking about your neighbors' wife. It's a sin according to the Bible, so when you do it, according to you there's a victim. Who is it?
And to take one more step: are all sinful acts immoral? And, conversely, are all immoral acts sins?
Dude. There is absolutely no way I'm going to try and answer every question you asked. I have internet ADD. Why don't you give my your top three? lol
-
And I thought I took arguing on the internet too seriously haha
surprised to see this thread still going
-
That doesn't answer the question; what it does, is look like a Jedi mind trick, without the Jedi.
Its reality, they can and will sin, but because they have accepted the spirit of Christ as savior, they are saved in spite of their sin. Something like this cant be faked.
Do you accept every single word, in the whole Bible, as an inerrant truth? If you don't, you're using some criteria to decide what is to be considered and used and what isn't. What does that mean when you consider the fact that the Bible, according to itself, teaches God's divine morality?
Every religion does this.
No, of course not... God would never condone slav...
“Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever.” – Leviticus 25:44-46
Oh! :-[
See? no word "slave" any where.
-
Ah so. Thanks. I didn't say morality is defined in the Bible. Or at least I don't think I said that. lol
I think my point was/is that things that are immoral are always immoral. That's different from laws, cultural practices, etc. Not everything that is illegal is immoral.
I remember now (looked at past post) you said you didn't think there was such a thing as victimless sins. and you didn't think morality changed with the passage of time. Or least it shouldn't.
I agree for the most part but the real question is, are all sins immoral?
-
See? no word "slave" any where.
You're right. Just the word "property" and "forever." Does it feel safe, hiding there, behind your finger?
-
I remember now (looked at past post) you said you didn't think there was such a thing as victimless sins. and you didn't think morality changed with the passage of time. Or least it shouldn't.
I agree for the most part but the real question is, are all sins immoral?
Never really thought about that, but I say probably not. I don't think all sin is equal. This puts me at odds with the Bible and many (if not most) Christians, but not every sin is treated the same in the Bible. I think it's similar to violations of city ordinances, speeding tickets, misdemeanors, and felonies. All may be considered breaking the law, but they're not treated the same.
Now don't ask me for a list, because I haven't thought about that. :D
-
Dude. There is absolutely no way I'm going to try and answer every question you asked. I have internet ADD. Why don't you give my your top three? lol
Ownage of biblical proportions..
-
Never really thought about that, but I say probably not. I don't think all sin is equal. This puts me at odds with the Bible and many (if not most) Christians, but not every sin is treated the same in the Bible. I think it's similar to violations of city ordinances, speeding tickets, misdemeanors, and felonies. All may be considered breaking the law, but they're not treated the same.
Now don't ask me for a list, because I haven't thought about that. :D
I find it hard to see how killing someone could be the same sin as adultery or eating shrimp. Making All sins the same somehow in my mind devalues life over supreme obdience.
The next question would be where does homosexuality rate?
-
Dude. There is absolutely no way I'm going to try and answer every question you asked. I have internet ADD. Why don't you give my your top three? lol
OK. As I said before, I'll play the devil's advocate, so buckle up. Here we go:
You assert that it's immoral to harm a child. Why? You are making the point that morality is absolute, so common sense has nothing to do with it; there must be some iron-clad, inherent reason that makes harming a child immoral, so what is it?
I assert that killing off those who are of a certain age (say 70) is perfectly fine. They've lived a full life, and once they reached a certain age, they need to have any valuable nutrients and organs extracted, and they must be euthanized and incinerated to make room for the rest of us. I assume you would agree this qualifies as abuse, which you said is immoral, Why is this position immoral?
You also said there's no victimless sins, but you've switched and are talking about compromising and violating a person's conscience. Nobody is forcing the Catholic couple in my example to use birth control. It's a sin according to Catholic doctrine, so when they do it, according to you there's a victim. Who is this victim? Nobody is forcing you to pump one off in the shower thinking about your neighbors' wife. It's a sin according to the Bible, so when you do it, according to you there's a victim. Who is this victim?
And, if you don't mind indulging me just a little longer: Is it your contention that all sinful acts immoral, and conversely, that all immoral acts sins?
-
OK. As I said before, I'll play the devil's advocate, so buckle up. Here we go:
You assert that it's immoral to harm a child. Why? You are making the point that morality is absolute, so common sense has nothing to do with it; there must be some iron-clad, inherent reason that makes harming a child immoral, so what is it?
I assert that killing off those who are of a certain age (say 70) is perfectly fine. They've lived a full life, and once they reached a certain age, they need to have any valuable nutrients and organs extracted, and they must be euthanized and incinerated to make room for the rest of us. I assume you would agree this qualifies as abuse, which you said is immoral, Why is this position immoral?
You also said there's no victimless sins, but you've switched and are talking about compromising and violating a person's conscience. Nobody is forcing the Catholic couple in my example to use birth control. It's a sin according to Catholic doctrine, so when they do it, according to you there's a victim. Who is this victim? Nobody is forcing you to pump one off in the shower thinking about your neighbors' wife. It's a sin according to the Bible, so when you do it, according to you there's a victim. Who is this victim?
And, if you don't mind indulging me just a little longer: Is it your contention that all sinful acts immoral, and conversely, that all immoral acts sins?
What I said is morality doesn't change over time, or least it should not. There are certain things that are immoral, regardless of whether societal norms change, and regardless of the passage of time. Regarding whether abusing a child is immoral, what exactly are you asking me?? You agree it's immoral. You tell me why that is? For me, it's common sense. I can't point you to some book or philosopher. If you're looking for some wordy sophisticated response, I can't help. In fact, it's sort of a "duh" response. Abusing a child is immoral, because it is.
Your position that we should murder the elderly is immoral because murder is immoral. Always has been. Always will be. Why? Common sense. I don't need a book or philosopher to tell me that. Do you? Sounds like it.
You need to go back and look at what I said about victimless sins. I said I don't think there are victimless sins, because sin always harms the individual. The individual is always one of the victims. I already talked about how doing something that only involves yourself requires you to violate your conscience, which leads to compromise, which can lead to further conduct that harms the individual, and others. And from a religious standpoint, it makes sense, because acts that eventually harm others start in a man's heart. Thoughts lead to action, action leads to consequences.
-
What I said is morality doesn't change over time, or least it should not. There are certain things that are immoral, regardless of whether societal norms change, and regardless of the passage of time. Regarding whether abusing a child is immoral, what exactly are you asking me?? You agree it's immoral. You tell me why that is? For me, it's common sense. I can't point you to some book or philosopher. If you're looking some wordy sophisticated response, I can't help. In fact, it's sort of a "duh" response. Abusing a child is immoral, because it is.
No, see, "common sense" isn't an answer. And if it really is common sense, then you shouldn't have any trouble providing the underlying reason that makes it immoral. After all, it's common sense!
Your position that we should murder the elderly is immoral because murder is immoral. Always has been. Always will be. Why? Common sense. I don't need a book or philosopher to tell me that. Do you? Sounds like it.
Again with this common sense - that's not an answer. I'm asking you what the time is, and you're answering "potato." Why would a society that sets maximum age limits be immoral? I want to know your specific, underlying reasons. Surely you should be able to come up with something beyond "it's common sense." You say it would be "murder" but murder is a killing that is both premeditated and unlawful and in the society that enforces maximum age limits, the killing would not only be lawful, it would be specifically required by law.
You need to go back and look at what I said about victimless sins. I said I don't think there are victimless sins, because sin always harms the individual. The individual is always one of the victims. I already talked about how doing something that only involves yourself requires you to violate your conscience, which leads to compromise, which can lead to further conduct that harms the individual, and others. And from a religious standpoint, it makes sense, because acts that eventually harm others start in a man's heart. Thoughts lead to action, action leads to consequences.
No, I understood you before: you're basically arguing that even if you freely choose to do something, you're 'violating' your conscience, making it (and by extent you) the victim. I just think that it is a rather specious argument: if you freely and without compulsion choose to do something, you aren't violating your conscience.
-
No, see, "common sense" isn't an answer. And if it really is common sense, then you shouldn't have any trouble providing the underlying reason that makes it immoral. After all, it's common sense!
Again with this common sense - that's not an answer. I'm asking you what the time is, and you're answering "potato." Why would a society that sets maximum age limits be immoral? I want to know your specific, underlying reasons. Surely you should be able to come up with something beyond "it's common sense." You say it would be "murder" but murder is a killing that is both premeditated and unlawful and in the society that enforces maximum age limits, the killing would not only be lawful, it would be specifically required by law.
No, I understood you before: you're basically arguing that even if you freely choose to do something, you're 'violating' your conscience, making it (and by extent you) the victim. I just think that it is a rather specious argument: if you freely and without compulsion choose to do something, you aren't violating your conscience.
Regarding child abuse, common sense is my answer. You don't accept it. That's your prerogative.
Same with murder of the elderly. We're not talking about whether something is illegal. Things that are illegal are not always immoral. You say it's not immoral to murder the elderly. I say it is. My rationale is common sense. That's all I got for you. Take it or leave it. :)
Regarding the individual as the victim, it's not a specious argument to me. I actually like it. :) What's specious, IMO, is saying doing something "freely and without compulsion" isn't violating your conscience. Most acts are done "freely and without compulsion," good, bad, or indifferent. And they all have consequences that are good, bad, or indifferent. If a person believes he should not engage in certain conduct as a matter of conscience, but "freely" engages in that conduct anyway, of course he's violating his own belief system.
-
Common sense says: Harming a child is immoral and wrong. Causing unwanted pain to the degree of abuse is wrong.
-
Regarding child abuse, common sense is my answer. You don't accept it. That's your prerogative.
Same with murder of the elderly. We're not talking about whether something is illegal. Things that are illegal are not always immoral. You say it's not immoral to murder the elderly. I say it is. My rationale is common sense. That's all I got for you. Take it or leave it. :)
The problem is that "common sense" isn't really all that common, and what's worse, it can be used to defend anything. I'll show you: It's common sense that people who have mental handicaps that prevent them from being productive members of society will not be able to support themselves and will require assistance either from the state or from individuals. It's common sense that these people are burdens, even if those who carry them right now don't see them as such. It's, therefore, common sense, that those with mental handicaps not be allowed to be a burden on anyone. This necessitates euthanizing them. It's just plain common sense!
Now, you could have said that the abuse of children is immoral because the initiation of violence is inherently immoral. Similarly with the elderly you could have argued that the use of force to compel someone to act against their own judgement is inherently immoral.
But you didn't. You argued that "common sense" dictates this. And my point is that common sense is something that's very culture-dependent. Sure, in the western world we frown upon killing our teenage daughters for wearing mini-skirts or holding hands with a boy, and we consider it "common sense" that one doesn't do such a thing. But a few thousand miles away, and your common sense isn't all that common.
Perhaps common sense is good enough for you, but I'm pretty sure that you'd be the first to condemn the killing of a teenage girl who held hands with a boy. The bottom line is that "common sense" cannot be the basis of an immutable and universal morality.
Regarding the individual as the victim, it's not a specious argument to me. I actually like it. :) What's specious, IMO, is saying doing something "freely and without compulsion" isn't violating your conscience. Most acts are done "freely and without compulsion," good, bad, or indifferent. And they all have consequences that are good, bad, or indifferent. If a person believes he should not engage in certain conduct as a matter of conscience, but "freely" engages in that conduct anyway, of course he's violating his own belief system.
A person who engages in certain conduct that he believes to be immoral without being compelled to do so is lying - either to himself or to you - because he doesn't believe. And you can't violate a moral/ethical code that you don't believe.
-
Common sense says: Harming a child is immoral and wrong. Causing unwanted pain to the degree of abuse is wrong.
Common sense cannot be the basis of morality. The common sense of Faleh Almaleki told him that he ought to kill his daughter to restore his honor, which is an act that I'm pretty sure you consider immoral. So why is your common sense right and his wrong?
Again, this isn't just arguing silly semantics. It goes to the core of how you define a consistent theory of morality and right and wrong. And yes, there is such a thing, but it's not based on common sense.
-
Common sense says: Harming a child is immoral and wrong. Causing unwanted pain to the degree of abuse is wrong.
I agree.
-
The problem is that "common sense" isn't really all that common, and what's worse, it can be used to defend anything. I'll show you: It's common sense that people who have mental handicaps that prevent them from being productive members of society will not be able to support themselves and will require assistance either from the state or from individuals. It's common sense that these people are burdens, even if those who carry them right now don't see them as such. It's, therefore, common sense, that those with mental handicaps not be allowed to be a burden on anyone. This necessitates euthanizing them. It's just plain common sense!
Now, you could have said that the abuse of children is immoral because the initiation of violence is inherently immoral. Similarly with the elderly you could have argued that the use of force to compel someone to act against their own judgement is inherently immoral.
But you didn't. You argued that "common sense" dictates this. And my point is that common sense is something that's very culture-dependent. Sure, in the western world we frown upon killing our teenage daughters for wearing mini-skirts or holding hands with a boy, and we consider it "common sense" that one doesn't do such a thing. But a few thousand miles away, and your common sense isn't all that common.
Perhaps common sense is good enough for you, but I'm pretty sure that you'd be the first to condemn the killing of a teenage girl who held hands with a boy. The bottom line is that "common sense" cannot be the basis of an immutable and universal morality.
A person who engages in certain conduct that he believes to be immoral without being compelled to do so is lying - either to himself or to you - because he doesn't believe. And you can't violate a moral/ethical code that you don't believe.
Regarding the murdering the disabled example: that's not an example of common sense. That's just friggin stupid.
A person who engages in conduct they believe is immoral without being compelled to do so is human. We do it all the time. It's preposterous to say you don't believe in a set of values just because you violate them (unless you never adhere to them). Anytime someone does something they know is wrong, whether that conduct harms others or only the individual, that person is violating their conscience. That doesn't mean they don't have a conscience/moral or ethical code.
Of course a person cannot
-
Regarding the murdering the disabled example: that's not an example of common sense. That's just friggin stupid.
Why is it stupid? You can't argue by vigorous handwaving, which is what you've been doing.
A person who engages in conduct they believe is immoral without being compelled to do so is human.
No. Humans aren't immoral by nature. A person who engages in conduct he believes is immoral without being compelled is just an immoral person.
It's preposterous to say you don't believe in a set of values just because you violate them (unless you never adhere to them). Anytime someone does something they know is wrong, whether that conduct harms others or only the individual, that person is violating their conscience. That doesn't mean they don't have a conscience/moral or ethical code.
Absent compulsion, if you sincerely believe something is immoral you do not do it. If you do do it, then either you don't believe your claim that it's immoral, so you are lying, or you actually believe it is immoral and are doing it anyways, making you an immoral person.
As for the violating your conscience stuff, again: you cannot "violate" your conscience, because the only way to do it is to do it willingly and with full knowledge of what it is you're doing. And that's not a violation.
-
Why is it stupid? You can't argue by vigorous handwaving, which is what you've been doing.
No. Humans aren't immoral by nature. A person who engages in conduct he believes is immoral without being compelled is just an immoral person.
Absent compulsion, if you sincerely believe something is immoral you do not do it. If you do do it, then either you don't believe your claim that it's immoral, so you are lying, or you actually believe it is immoral and are doing it anyways, making you an immoral person.
As for the violating your conscience stuff, again: you cannot "violate" your conscience, because the only way to do it is to do it willingly and with full knowledge of what it is you're doing. And that's not a violation.
You're asking me why it's stupid to say that murdering disabled people is a matter of common sense? I can't help you what that one, other than to say it's a ridiculous hypothetical. If you want to discuss hypotheticals at least come up with one that's realistic, and isn't just plain idiotic. And I can "argue" by "vigorous handwaving," sarcasm, ignoring, dismantling, point-by-point, ad hominem, or whatever method I choose to use. The power of choice is a great thing. :)
I didn't say humans are immoral by nature.
A person who engages in conduct he believes is immoral is often just a person who makes a mistake. And everyone makes mistakes.
Absent compulsion, the only way you never make a mistake is if you're a robot or Jesus Christ.
-
Common sense cannot be the basis of morality. The common sense of Faleh Almaleki told him that he ought to kill his daughter to restore his honor, which is an act that I'm pretty sure you consider immoral. So why is your common sense right and his wrong?
Again, this isn't just arguing silly semantics. It goes to the core of how you define a consistent theory of morality and right and wrong. And yes, there is such a thing, but it's not based on common sense.
Common sense: apply your act or desire to the victim principle.
Killing your daughter.... Does yur daughter want to die? Does yur daughter want to be beaten to death? Is your daughter in The right mind to make that decision?
-
You're asking me why it's stupid to say that murdering disabled people is a matter of common sense? I can't help you what that one, other than to say it's a ridiculous hypothetical. If you want to discuss hypotheticals at least come up with one that's realistic, and isn't just plain idiotic.
No, I'm asking you to state the actual moral principle that makes murdering disabled people immoral because "common sense" isn't a moral principle. I've even given you two examples of a moral principle that would make the killing of anyone an immoral act. Why you persist on this "common sense" nonsense is beyond me.
And I can "argue" by "vigorous handwaving," sarcasm, ignoring, dismantling, point-by-point, ad hominem, or whatever method I choose to use. The power of choice is a great thing. :)
No doubt. And you are, of course, free to choose to "argue" like a buffoon if you wish to do so, and there's nothing I can do to stop you. I'll just simply ignore you.
A person who engages in conduct he believes is immoral is often just a person who makes a mistake. And everyone makes mistakes.
That's certainly true. But also irrelevant in that it doesn't change the fact that someone can't, absent compulsion, violate their own conscience in doing something that goes against their moral code, which is the point I was making.
Absent compulsion, the only way you never make a mistake is if you're a robot or Jesus Christ.
That's a topic for another day...
-
Common sense: apply your act or desire to the victim principle.
Killing your daughter.... Does yur daughter want to die? Does yur daughter want to be beaten to death? Is your daughter in The right mind to make that decision?
Right. Now we're getting somewhere! But it's not common sense that takes us there.
-
Right. Now we're getting somewhere! But it's not common sense that takes us there.
Sure it is, because it's common sense that tells you your daughter doesn't want to die.
-
Sure it is, because it's common sense that tells you your daughter doesn't want to die.
Common sense also tells someone else that she has sinned and shamed the family, and the only way to be cleansed is to kill her. You see the problem?
-
No, I'm asking you to state the actual moral principle that makes murdering disabled people immoral because "common sense" isn't a moral principle. I've even given you two examples of a moral principle that would make the killing of anyone an immoral act. Why you persist on this "common sense" nonsense is beyond me.
No doubt. And you are, of course, free to choose to "argue" like a buffoon if you wish to do so, and there's nothing I can do to stop you. I'll just simply ignore you.
That's certainly true. But also irrelevant in that it doesn't change the fact that someone can't, absent compulsion, violate their own conscience in doing something that goes against their moral code, which is the point I was making.
That's a topic for another day...
You've given me two examples that don't make any dang sense.
Yes, I can argue like a buffoon. I can also argue like a pseduo-intellectual. And feel free to ignore me anytime. You won't hurt my feelings. :)
-
You've given me two examples that don't make any dang sense.
I think they make plenty of sense; pity you don't agree, as this is a genuinely interesting discussion.
Yes, I can argue like a buffoon. I can also argue like a pseduo-intellectual. And feel free to ignore me anytime. You won't hurt my feelings. :)
It hurts my feelings that I can't hurt your feelings :'( I thought we had a thing... a connection...
-
Common sense also tells someone else that she has sinned and shamed the family, and the only way to be cleansed is to kill her. You see the problem?
Not really because that's a cultural thing that doesn't take into account the victim principle just as man boy sex in ancient Greece.
-
Not really because that's a cultural thing that doesn't take into account the victim principle just as man boy sex in ancient Greece.
Ah, so common sense doesn't help when there's "cultural things" involved? That doesn't make it very useful in defining a universal morality.
As for your victim principle, that has problems to, although they may not be immediately apparent. Let's assume that I genuinely believe that if I become overweight, I should be given 6 months to shape up or be killed. Does the victim principle mean I can go around giving fatsos ultimatums and cleansing the earth of flub?
-
Ah, so common sense doesn't help when there's "cultural things" involved? That doesn't make it very useful in defining a universal morality.
It does beucase once applied to the victim principle it's easy. Such as your following scenario:
As for your victim principle, that has problems to, although they may not be immediately apparent. Let's assume that I genuinely believe that if I become overweight, I should be given 6 months to shape up or be killed. Does the victim principle mean I can go around giving fatsos ultimatums and cleansing the earth of flub?
It works perfectly here: do the fatso's want to die? Of course not...(common sense).....you killing them is immoral and wrong regardless of your own persinal morals and beleifs.
So Either you are just trying to find holes in the principle (which i appreciate you playing the devls advocate in this) or you don't really understand it
I bet however, there are scenarios that would challenge it.
-
It does beucase once applied to the victim principle it's easy. Such as your following scenario:
It works perfectly here: do the fatso's want to die? Of course not...(common sense).....
No. Not common sense. If I were a fatso, I'd want to die, and it seems fairly common sense to me that someone who's hyper-obese would welcome the relief of death.
you killing them is immoral and wrong regardless of your own persinal morals and beleifs.
Right, but not because of common sense.
So Either you are just trying to find holes in the principle (which i appreciate you playing the devls advocate in this) or you don't really understand it
I think that my posts have made it pretty clear that I'm playing the devil's advocate.
-
Setting aside any form of theism, what is morality?
No. Not common sense. If I were a fatso, I'd want to die, and it seems fairly common sense to me that someone who's hyper-obese would welcome the relief of death.
Right, but not because of common sense.
I think that my posts have made it pretty clear that I'm playing the devil's advocate.
Setting aside any form of theism, what is morality? What purpose does it serve?
-
Setting aside any form of theism, what is morality? What purpose does it serve?
Morality is a code of values to guide the choices and actions that we make and which determine the purpose and the course of our lives.
-
Morality is a code of values to guide the choices and actions that we make and which determine the purpose and the course of our lives.
What is a code of values? Or what makes up that code? FYI ~ I'm just asking, not leading you anywhere.
-
What is a code of values? Or what makes up that code? FYI ~ I'm just asking, not leading you anywhere.
A code of values is a collection of principles upon one which bases his decisions.
-
A code of values is a collection of principles upon one which bases his decisions.
Forgive me, so what then are examples of principles? Is a collection of principles like a collection of behaviors with which to make decisions? For example, if presented with say situation X then one should react to situation X based on that collection of behaviors/principles? Again, just asking, not leading you anywhere.
-
Forgive me, so what then are examples of principles? Is a collection of principles like a collection of behaviors with which to make decisions? For example, if presented with say situation X then one should react to situation X based on that collection of behaviors/principles? Again, just asking, not leading you anywhere.
That's correct. When faced with a decision, one examines one's principles, in order of importance, applies them to the situation and acts accordingly.
I'll give you an example: Let's assume you have a crowbar. It's your favorite crowbar, and you keep it mounted on the wall with a big "DO NOT TOUCH" sign on it. One of my principles is that stealing is wrong, which means that I would not take your crowbar down from the wall to open a box. But another of my principles is that human life is inherently valuable, so if I ever saw a small child in a burning car, and I needed a crowbar to save him, I wouldn't hesitate to take your crowbar from the wall to do so.
-
That's correct. When faced with a decision, one examines one's principles, in order of importance, applies them to the situation and acts accordingly.
I'll give you an example: Let's assume you have a crowbar. It's your favorite crowbar, and you keep it mounted on the wall with a big "DO NOT TOUCH" sign on it. One of my principles is that stealing is wrong, which means that I would not take your crowbar down from the wall to open a box. But another of my principles is that human life is inherently valuable, so if I ever saw a small child in a burning car, and I needed a crowbar to save him, I wouldn't hesitate to take your crowbar from the wall to do so.
Ok, I follow your example. That said, what determines the order of importance of the principles themselves. I assume the order is a ranking of sorts....greatest to least or worst to best....something like that?
-
Ok, I follow your example. That said, what determines the order of importance of the principles themselves. I assume the order is a ranking of sorts....greatest to least or worst to best....something like that?
That's something that each individual decides for themselves. There's no 'universal' ranking, although, rationally, there's at least a rough "ordering" assuming we all share some common values, which isn't unrealistic considering our commonalities.
-
No. Not common sense. If I were a fatso, I'd want to die, and it seems fairly common sense to me that someone who's hyper-obese would welcome the relief of death.
Are you every fatso?
Is every fatso you?
Do you believe every fatso believes and thinks exactly like you?
Right, but not because of common sense.
Exactly, because of the victim principle......however, its common sense that allows you not to have to debate it prior to killing the fatso
I think that my posts have made it pretty clear that I'm playing the devil's advocate.
I know, i was giving props and letting you know i appreciate it.
-
That's something that each individual decides for themselves. There's no 'universal' ranking, although, rationally, there's at least a rough "ordering" assuming we all share some common values, which isn't unrealistic considering our commonalities.
Ok, let's consider we have two communities of people whose set of values stands in opposition of one another. Group 1 has as its core values integrity, order and love while group 2 considers chaos, brutality and violence as it core set of values. Put in practice, if someone in Group 1 becomes ill they are cared for and treated while if someone in Group 2 becomes ill they are eliminated. Both groups have sustained and increased their ranks by adhering to their set of values and both groups are fully aware and fully informed of the other group and what the other group stands for. In terms of number of members in the groups it varies over time, but averaging counts it's relatively the same (45/55 split or 40/60 split between total membership in the groups). Is there a difference in morality between groups?
-
Ok, let's consider we have two communities of people whose set of values stands in opposition of one another. Group 1 has as its core values integrity, order and love while group 2 considers chaos, brutality and violence as it core set of values. Both groups have sustained and increased their ranks by adhering to their set of values and both groups are fully aware and fully informed of the other group and what the other group stands for. In terms of number of members in the groups it varies over time, but averaging counts it's relatively the same (45/55 split or 40/60 split between groups). Is there a difference in morality between groups?
I would argue that valuing chaos, brutality and violence isn't rational; morality (like everything in life) has to be rational.
-
I would argue that valuing chaos, brutality and violence isn't rational; morality (like everything in life) has to be rational.
What would define group 2's values as irrational? Once again, I'm not leading anywhere...just goin down the rabbithole so to speak LOL!
-
What would define group 2's values as irrational? Once again, I'm not leading anywhere...just goin down the rabbithole so to speak LOL!
The initiation of violence isn't rational.
-
The initiation of violence isn't rational.
Ok, so initiating violence is irrational, but is responding to the initiated violence with an equivalent act of violence in some circumstances considered rational or appropriate?
That said, given the notion that initiating violence isn't rational, is it defined as such because the initiation of violence can lead to the destruction of someone else? In essence, initiating violence as a value is irrational because it can result in undesired chaos or destruction and as a community that shares basic commonalities we should employ a rationale that adheres to a set of values that avoids chaos, violence and destruction and employs values founded on love, order and peace?
-
I would argue that valuing chaos, brutality and violence isn't rational; morality (like everything in life) has to be rational.
Not to jump in here - but there have been warrior societies in the past who's morality valued the violence of combat the highest of all.
Some of which did pretty good for their selves.
I dont think violence in and of itself is irrational.
Unbridled, uncontrolled violence maybe. But not simply violence.
-
Not to jump in here - but there have been warrior societies in the past who's morality valued the violence of combat the highest of all.
Some of which did pretty good for their selves.
I dont think violence in and of itself is irrational.
Unbridled, uncontrolled violence maybe. But not simply violence.
axvo did clarify and say that the initiation of violence is irrational, but I'm assuming that a response of violence in regards to the irrational initiation of violence can be appropriate in some circumstances....it's the best behavior with which to respond in that particular circumstance.
-
The bible was relevant in it's time. That time has passed. Like it or not, we no longer live in biblical times....not that folks had it so good back then.
-
The bible was relevant in it's time. That time has passed. Like it or not, we no longer live in biblical times....not that folks had it so good back then.
Really? All of it is irrelevant?
-
Not to jump in here - but there have been warrior societies in the past who's morality valued the violence of combat the highest of all.
Some of which did pretty good for their selves.
Right, but is "doing pretty good for oneself" the yardstick that we use for what is moral and what isn't? If that's the case, then Bernie Madoff was a pretty moral guy, up until he got busted.
I dont think violence in and of itself is irrational.
Unbridled, uncontrolled violence maybe. But not simply violence.
As Man of Steel said, I think that the initiation of violence and force are irrational (and, incidentally, immoral) and once someone decides to use force and violence against me, I am justified in responding using any means available to me, including violence and force.
-
Right, but is "doing pretty good for oneself" the yardstick that we use for what is moral and what isn't? If that's the case, then Bernie Madoff was a pretty moral guy, up until he got busted.
As Man of Steel said, I think that the initiation of violence and force are irrational (and, incidentally, immoral) and once someone decides to use force and violence against me, I am justified in responding using any means available to me, including violence and force.
"the yardstick" What is that yardstick? Man? Community of men?
As I understand it, we exist in an accelarating, expanding, dying cosmos; although, our existence is basically a cosmological radar blip…an outlier that will be eliminated....we are cosmic nothingness. The cosmos began with a bang and will end with a whimper via continued expansion, accelaration and all life will succumb to a cold, dark death. Given that foundation of chaos and lack of purpose the rational reason we strive for is merely illusory and the rational values we employ are essentially meaningless as we have no purpose on our own. Still, somehow, during that cosmic radar blip, within the expanse of utter chaos, our galaxy/solar system/planet magnificently aligned and formed with such precision that it approaches even mathematical limits of possibility (that remaining possibility is amazingly small, but I concede mathematically not impossible). Yet modern cosmology knows without a doubt that we are doomed yet we cling to the illusion of our own evolved morality and believe that harmony is the appropriate value to adhere to despite the ever-present and inevitable state of chaos we exist in. Our man-made notion of morality is utterly meaningless by itself because we are essentially meaningless on our own; unless our existence has a genuine foundation of purpose. Something beyond man, something beyond our perception of a chaotic universe, something that transcends the expanse of time and space, something with purpose that transcends our bubble of chaos is the only reason we can define morality. In an existence of chaos we are that chaos until we introduce the yardstick, the transcendent bar with which to gauge genuine value and purpose from.
-
"the yardstick" What is that yardstick? Man? Community of men?
My personal opinion is that the yardstick of any moral code is how well it works at achieving, maintaining, a happy life.
As I understand it, we exist in an accelarating, expanding, dying cosmos; although, our existence is basically a cosmological radar blip…an outlier that will be eliminated....we are cosmic nothingness. The cosmos began with a bang and will end with a whimper via continued expansion, accelaration and all life will succumb to a cold, dark death. Given that foundation of chaos and lack of purpose the rational reason we strive for is merely illusory and the rational values we employ are essentially meaningless as we have no purpose on our own.
It's sad to see anyone claim their existence is meaningless and purposeless...
Our man-made notion of morality is utterly meaningless by itself because we are essentially meaningless on our own; unless our existence has a genuine foundation of purpose. Something beyond man, something beyond our perception of a chaotic universe, something that transcends the expanse of time and space, something with purpose that transcends our bubble of chaos is the only reason we can define morality. In an existence of chaos we are that chaos until we introduce the yardstick, the transcendent bar with which to gauge genuine value and purpose from.
To be honest, I don't understand your mentality: you see existence as meaningless and without value; but after stripping any meaning and value, you go looking for it by contemplating the supernatural.
-
Really? All of it is irrelevant?
Not all certainly, but much of it is.
-
My personal opinion is that the yardstick of any moral code is how well it works at achieving, maintaining, a happy life.
It's sad to see anyone claim their existence is meaningless and purposeless...
To be honest, I don't understand your mentality: you see existence as meaningless and without value; but after stripping any meaning and value, you go looking for it by contemplating the supernatural.
Well, what purpose do we serve in an uncreated, unintelligently designed cosmos that is expanding, accelerating and growing dark, cold and unable to sustain life? For some reason, our cosmological existence is barely a blip on the radar, but for a brief period we evolved and will inevitably vanish. Our mere existence was based on random chance and our ability to continue on indefinitely has been deemed impossible. We recognize we exist due to no specific purpose, we recognize we're doomed and inbetween we fabricate a fleeting purpose. So we attempt to validate and give purpose to ourselves, what do we add to the cosmos from which we came? Nothing really, we'll eventually assume another form within the cosmos that isn't alive.
-
Not all certainly, but much of it is.
Which parts do you think are relevant vs. irrelevant?
-
The bible was relevant in it's time. That time has passed. Like it or not, we no longer live in biblical times....not that folks had it so good back then.
God works within the context of our lives to help us draw closer to him, but he is also timeless and unchanging. We may advance ourselves in many ways, but the timeless, unchanging God remains and the sin in our lives today can only be reconciled via the same narrow gate of yesterday. Yes, the bible was in full, canonical form a long time ago, but the God of that bible is the same God of yesterday, today and tomorrow.
-
Well, what purpose do we serve in an uncreated, unintelligently designed cosmos that is expanding, accelerating and growing dark, cold and unable to sustain life? For some reason, our cosmological existence is barely a blip on the radar, but for a brief period we evolved and will inevitably vanish. Our mere existence was based on random chance and our ability to continue on indefinitely has been deemed impossible. We recognize we exist due to no specific purpose, we recognize we're doomed and inbetween we fabricate a fleeting purpose. So we attempt to validate and give purpose to ourselves, what do we add to the cosmos from which we came? Nothing really, we'll eventually assume another form within the cosmos that isn't alive.
Now you're starting to get it! This lack of ultimate purpose, however, does not thereby mean there is no purpose simpliciter. We can still develop and inculcate our own purposes (meanings of life) and live by them. In other words, attempting to paint the irreligious person into a corner over lack of ultimate purpose fails because there are quasi-purposes that people live, fight, and die for (e.g., democracy, one's family, and so forth) despite their not having an "ultimate purpose" that they were created for. Not that you were attempting to paint in this way, just saying.
-
Which parts do you think are relevant vs. irrelevant?
I would have to actually study the bible to answer this....and frankly, I am more interested in current events than I am in ancient history.
Leviticus had plenty to say about homosexuality and other things. Hopefully, what he said is not relevant today.
-
Well, what purpose do we serve in an uncreated, unintelligently designed cosmos that is expanding, accelerating and growing dark, cold and unable to sustain life?
Why do we have to serve any purpose beyond our life, which is it's own purpose?
For some reason, our cosmological existence is barely a blip on the radar, but for a brief period we evolved and will inevitably vanish.
And the problem with that is what exactly?
Our mere existence was based on random chance and our ability to continue on indefinitely has been deemed impossible.
Right, and?
We recognize we exist due to no specific purpose, we recognize we're doomed and inbetween we fabricate a fleeting purpose. So we attempt to validate and give purpose to ourselves, what do we add to the cosmos from which we came? Nothing really, we'll eventually assume another form within the cosmos that isn't alive.
Again, why do we have to have some sort of ultimate purpose outside of our own life?
I really don't understand your mentality. You've repeatedly stated that we need some sort of "external" purpose, or our life is worthless; do you really believe your life is worthless, save for some external purpose? If so, that's pretty sad.
-
Which parts do you think are relevant vs. irrelevant?
It seems the going rate is:
Sins that disgust people - Relevant
Sins that people like - Irrevelant
-
It seems the going rate is:
Sins that disgust people - Relevant
Sins that people like - Irrevelant
I don't believe in sin. I believe in right and wrong.
-
I don't believe in sin. I believe in right and wrong.
"Right" and "wrong", based on WHAT STANDARDS? You can't have such, without a measuring stick against which to make such a call.
-
I would have to actually study the bible to answer this....and frankly, I am more interested in current events than I am in ancient history.
Leviticus had plenty to say about homosexuality and other things. Hopefully, what he said is not relevant today.
The Old and New Testament are consistent when it comes to homosexuality.
Seems like it would be difficult to call portions of the book irrelevant if you haven't read it.
-
It seems the going rate is:
Sins that disgust people - Relevant
Sins that people like - Irrevelant
lol. Truth. :)
-
"Right" and "wrong", based on WHAT STANDARDS? You can't have such, without a measuring stick against which to make such a call.
Are you suggesting that such standards can only be divine in origin, and that we are unable to define rational moral code?
-
Are you suggesting that such standards can only be divine in origin, and that we are unable to define rational moral code?
I'm not suggesting it. I'm stating it, flat-out.
Which man or men get to decide what is right and what is wrong, and who gives them the authority to do such?
-
I'm not suggesting it. I'm stating it, flat-out.
You're flat out wrong. And if you were right, you'd have no way of knowing if this divine morality was good or not anyways.
Which man or men get to decide what is right and what is wrong, and who gives them the authority to do such?
Each man gets to decide what his moral code is. If his choice is rational, then he arrives at the same moral code as all other rational men. As for the rest of you, who aren't rational, why care about you? Irrationality is it's own worst enemy.
-
"Right" and "wrong", based on WHAT STANDARDS? You can't have such, without a measuring stick against which to make such a call.
Common sense....most people, with the exception of sociopaths, innately know right from wrong. Some of this is based on our childhood experiences. Even people who follow the Bible's teachings closely sometimes do bad things.
-
"Right" and "wrong", based on WHAT STANDARDS? You can't have such, without a measuring stick against which to make such a call.
Correct. Sin is a condition we are born into the minute we breath life. Gods Holy Laws and standards are not the same as human "standards". "Right" and "wrong" is merely a conscious awereness of our sin or the choice between "good and evil". We can never apease God however by our own standards. The cults and false religions go by and teach a "works based religion" but "works" which is merely standing by a "right from wrong mentaly" can never give one right standing with God. If that were so the whole message of the gospel and the death of Christ on the cross would be completely void and nullified. We would have merely needed to simply follow the the Ten Commandments.
-
Correct. Sin is a condition we are born into the minute we breath life.
Bullshit. You and your ilk, who believe that, believe in a god that is profoundly immoral. That you can't see that doesn't change that fact.
A "sin" Gods Holy Laws and standards are not the same as human "standards". "Right" and "wrong" is merely a conscious awereness of our sin or the choice between "good and evil". We can never apease God however by our own standards. The cults and false religions go by and teach a "works based religion" but "works" which is merely standing by a "right from wrong mentaly" can never give one right standing with God. If that were so the whole message of the gospel and the death of Christ on the cross would be completely void and nullified. We would have merely needed to simply follow the the Ten Commandments.
"The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin. A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man's sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. To hold man's nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched. Yet that is the root of your code.
Do not hide behind the cowardly evasion that man is born with free will, but with a 'tendency' to evil. A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice. It forces man to struggle through the effort of playing, to bear responsibility and pay for the game, but the decision is weighted in favor of a tendency that he had no power to escape. If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, his will is not free.
What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge - he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil - he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor - he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire - he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy - all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man's fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was - that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love - he was not man.
Man's fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he's man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives. They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man."
-
Bullshit. You and your ilk, who believe that, believe in a god that is profoundly immoral. That you can't see that doesn't change that fact.
That's an understatement.
-
Correct. Sin is a condition we are born into the minute we breath life. Gods Holy Laws and standards are not the same as human "standards". "Right" and "wrong" is merely a conscious awereness of our sin or the choice between "good and evil". We can never apease God however by our own standards. The cults and false religions go by and teach a "works based religion" but "works" which is merely standing by a "right from wrong mentaly" can never give one right standing with God. If that were so the whole message of the gospel and the death of Christ on the cross would be completely void and nullified. We would have merely needed to simply follow the the Ten Commandments.
Hope this works for you. It does not work for me. Original sin is something I cannot abide.
It occurs to me that the world would be a better place today if people could have simply followed the Ten Commandments. Countless wars have been fought and millions of people have died in vain because of differing religious beliefs. Of course most all of these people believed and they knew the way.
-
The Old and New Testament are consistent when it comes to homosexuality.
Seems like it would be difficult to call portions of the book irrelevant if you haven't read it.
The reason it is not difficult to do this is because so many folks quote and interpert the Bible to suit their own beliefs and feelings regardless of whether they are right or wrong. Ever witness a religious discussion between, say, Jehovah's Witnesses and Catholics where they quote the bible. It is as if they are discussing two very different books and each party believes their way is the only right way.
-
Are you suggesting that such standards can only be divine in origin, and that we are unable to define rational moral code?
I think that is exactly what some folks believe. That is why they seek devine forgiveness for repeated offenses (sins). They delude themselves.
-
You're flat out wrong. And if you were right, you'd have no way of knowing if this divine morality was good or not anyways.
Each man gets to decide what his moral code is. If his choice is rational, then he arrives at the same moral code as all other rational men. As for the rest of you, who aren't rational, why care about you? Irrationality is it's own worst enemy.
You're talking in circles. WHO gets to decide what is "rational" and what isn't?
If each man decides his moral code, who are YOU to say that my code isn't rational and yours is? You're claiming that consensus equals rationality. If that's the case, you may recall that the consensus was once that the world was flat.
-
You're talking in circles. WHO gets to decide what is "rational" and what isn't?
If each man decides his moral code, who are YOU to say that my code isn't rational and yours is? You're claiming that consensus equals rationality. If that's the case, you may recall that the consensus was once that the world was flat.
That's not true?
-
You're talking in circles. WHO gets to decide what is "rational" and what isn't?
Nobody has to decide what is and isn't rational. Things are what they are.
If each man decides his moral code, who are YOU to say that my code isn't rational and yours is? You're claiming that consensus equals rationality. If that's the case, you may recall that the consensus was once that the world was flat.
No. It's the other way 'round: I'm claiming that rationality means consensus.
-
Nobody has to decide what is and isn't rational. Things are what they are.
No. It's the other way 'round: I'm claiming that rationality means consensus.
So wait.. youre saying Morality is subjective but RATIONALITY isnt?
Whats rational to YOU may be highly irrational to someone else.
Your logic makes no sense here man, which is unusual.
-
You're talking in circles. WHO gets to decide what is "rational" and what isn't?
If each man decides his moral code, who are YOU to say that my code isn't rational and yours is? You're claiming that consensus equals rationality. If that's the case, you may recall that the consensus was once that the world was flat.
Believing that the world is flat is not a moral issue. Your example doesn't hold water.
-
Believing that the world is flat is not a moral issue. Your example doesn't hold water.
Example doesnt, but his point does.
Rationalilty is highly subjective.
There isnt a "universal" rational code, just a there isnt a universal "moral" code.
-
Morality was developed in other religions too and there are constant morals in all of them, such as don not kill, steal, rape, etc. Not to mention, in philosophy also.
ALL these are from MAN including the ones form the Bible.
-
Morality was developed in other religions too and there are constant morals in all of them, such as don not kill, steal, rape, etc. Not to mention, in philosophy also.
ALL these are from MAN including the ones form the Bible.
Agreed, as is the idea of rationality. To claim rationality is universal but morals arent, is...... well.. dumb.
*FYI*
I know you werent claiming that rationality is universal
-
-Seems to me it is possible for someone to be irrational and yet still have very high moral standards. Likewise, rational folks can still be immoral.
-
So wait.. youre saying Morality is subjective but RATIONALITY isnt?
I'm saying that there is a morality based on reason, that it is objective and sensible.
Whats rational to YOU may be highly irrational to someone else.
No. This is a common misconception. If we both have the same set of facts and use reason properly, we will both arrive at the same conclusion. If you think that's not the case, then please, show me a counterargument.
-Seems to me it is possible for someone to be irrational and yet still have very high moral standards. Likewise, rational folks can still be immoral.
Right. But I didn't say that someone who's irrational is, necessarily, immoral, or that someone who's rational is, necessarily, moral.
I said that a morality (i.e. a moral code) based on reason is possible, and that all people who use reason to define a moral code will arrive at the same moral code. I didn't say that people who use reason have to adhere to that moral code, although there are logical reasons to do so.
To claim rationality is universal but morals arent, is...... well.. dumb.
Rationality is universal, we agree on that. While I do believe that you can have a rational morality (which would be universal) I am not convinced that such a morality could account for all the actions we currently consider immoral. Whether that is a deficit is an entirely different subject.
I'll give you an example: a person is in the hospital and he will die because of, say, irreperable heart damage. His kidneys are both in perfect working order. His young nephew is in desperate need of a kidney, and he agrees to undergo a procedure to donate his kidney. Another child could also benefit from the other kidney, but the man refuses to donate or to even sign a donor card, so that after his death his remaining kidney may be used.
I submit that his choice to donate a kidney to his nephew is rational. But is his choice to not donate to the other kid, even after death, rational? Is it moral?
-
No. This is a common misconception. If we both have the same set of facts and use reason properly, we will both arrive at the same conclusion. If you think that's not the case, then please, show me a counterargument.
Abortion?
-
Abortion?
You would have to try and convince me. I don't believe that abortion is a controversial issue if examined logically, although I agree that it is an excellent counterargument.
-
No. This is a common misconception. If we both have the same set of facts and use reason properly, we will both arrive at the same conclusion. If you think that's not the case, then please, show me a counterargument.
Really? So youre saying that if we both have the same facts, I will come to the same conclusion you do because rationality is universal? And if I dont, im acting irrationally (according to you)
Dude....
One example I can think of, happened in Iraq, just off the top of my head.
Man - is injured in crossfire, and will die if doesnt get attention.
One man weighs the options, says, if I run out in into the crossfire Im going to get shot and die, and the other dude is going to die as well. Said man chooses to stay put.
Other man seems the same thing, decides he can make it, and runs out, grabs said man, and returns unhurt.
Situation is the same for both men, yet one saw running out into fire as irrational and the other did not.
Rationality is most certainly NOT universal, as what one person see's as rational somone else will see as totally irrational. Its just as subjective as morality. Maybe moreso.
Youre trying to use your own sense of rationality as a universal to judge morality. That whole line of logic is flawed.
-
You would have to try and convince me. I don't believe that abortion is a controversial issue if examined logically, although I agree that it is an excellent counterargument.
We have the same facts, and the same rationality but people have 2 different views on it.
Another angle to this discussion is the phenomenon of Belief being more powerful than fact.
-
Really? So youre saying that if we both have the same facts, I will come to the same conclusion you do because rationality is universal? And if I dont, im acting irrationally (according to you)
Dude....
No, I'm saying that if we both have the same set of facts, and that we both have a moral code based on reason, we will both find a decision to be moral or we will both find it to be immoral.
One example I can think of, happened in Iraq, just off the top of my head.
Man - is injured in crossfire, and will die if doesnt get attention.
One man weighs the options, says, if I run out in into the crossfire Im going to get shot and die, and the other dude is going to die as well. Said man chooses to stay put.
Other man seems the same thing, decides he can make it, and runs out, grabs said man, and returns unhurt.
So one man thinks he can make it, the other doesn't.
Situation is the same for both men, yet one saw running out into fire as irrational and the other did not.
No - the situation wasn't the same, by your own admission. One man said "I can make it" and one said "I can't make it."
One man saw running into fire with a poor chance of success as irrational. Another saw running into fire with a good chance of success as rational.
There's no problem that I can detect here.
Rationality is most certainly NOT universal, as what one person see's as rational somone else will see as totally irrational. Its just as subjective as morality. Maybe moreso.
Reason is universal. That two people can arrive at different conclusions doesn't change that fact. If we're both on a desert island and we only have food for 6 days and we die if we without food for 24 hours, then it's rational for you to want the food for yourself if you know a boat is coming in 7 days. Just as it's rational for me to want the food for myself.
This doesn't make logic irrational. We are both using logic, but not the same set of facts: you value your life more than mine and I value mine more than yours.
Youre trying to use your own sense of rationality as a universal to judge morality. That whole line of logic is flawed.
Logic is universal. Again, it you think that's not the case, you're welcome to offer a counter argument.
-
We have the same facts, and the same rationality but people have 2 different views on it.
Another angle to this discussion is the phenomenon of Belief being more powerful than fact.
I suggest that we don't have the same set of facts. You may, for example, consider a just-fertilized ovum as a human being, and thus consider abortion to be murder. I don't consider that same ovum to be human.
If we disagree and we're both using logic it's either because one of us is wrong or because we don't both have the same facts.
-
Im so confused.
If we both have the same set of facts and use reason properly
Dudes are standing next to each other. Same facts. Same reason. Both guys know that running into the crossfire is suicide. Guy dieing in front of us, needs attention, bullets whizzing by on both sides. One chooses to run into a crossfire, deeming it to be perfectly rational, the other does not.
If rationality was universal, then you would be saying one of these guys was wrong. You argument, at least to me, seems circular. Everyone will come to the same conclusion with the same facts and if reaon is used, but my case is perfectly fine because 2 different guys came to 2 different conclusions when presented with the same set of facts and using their own sense of reason.
If rationality is universal, one person must be irrational. If its universal, this situation cannot be "fine".
-
I suggest that we don't have the same set of facts. You may, for example, consider a just-fertilized ovum as a human being, and thus consider abortion to be murder. I don't consider that same ovum to be human.
If we disagree and we're both using logic it's either because one of us is wrong or because we don't both have the same facts.
the debate isn't necessarily there. Its whether or not it should be legal.
-
the debate isn't necessarily there. Its whether or not it should be legal.
Well, isnt law usually based on morality? Isnt that just going back to the same root of the argument?
-
Im so confused.
Dudes are standing next to each other. Same facts. Same reason. Both guys know that running into the crossfire is suicide. Guy dieing in front of us, needs attention, bullets whizzing by on both sides. One chooses to run into a crossfire, deeming it to be perfectly rational, the other does not.
Perhaps one guy knows the injured person better. Perhaps he was once saved from such a situation himself. Perhaps he considers it an honorable way to die. It is not the same situation.
If rationality was universal, then you would be saying one of these guys was wrong. You argument, at least to me, seems circular. Everyone will come to the same conclusion with the same facts and if reaon is used, but my case is perfectly fine because 2 different guys came to 2 different conclusions when presented with the same set of facts and using their own sense of reason.
I think you misunderstand your own example.
If rationality is universal, one person must be irrational. If its universal, this situation cannot be "fine".
Perhaps one person is irrational - the sort of situation you describe doesn't lend itself to rationality. Or perhaps he feels honor-bound to help a fallen comrade. Or any of a million other differentiators apply.
This is a bad example, and it will never work. You may want to try something else.
-
You would have to try and convince me. I don't believe that abortion is a controversial issue if examined logically, although I agree that it is an excellent counterargument.
Not to be all contrary here, but since abortion is in fact a very controversial issue, are you suggesting that folks who argue and demonstate either for or against abortion are not logical or for that matter, rational?
-
the debate isn't necessarily there. Its whether or not it should be legal.
I thought we were discussing morality. But OK, we can discuss legality. I think that abortion should be legal since (a) I don't consider a clump of cells to be a human being and (b) nobody should be forced to be an incubator and to live at the expense of or for the benefit of another.
Not to be all contrary here, but since abortion is in fact a very controversial issue, are you suggesting that folks who argue and demonstate either for or against abortion are not logical or for that matter, rational?
I am suggesting that under a rational morality abortion is either moral or immoral - it can't be both. I happen to think that it's moral, but perhaps I have it wrong and someone can convince me that it's immoral. As for the folks who argue and demonstrate, who knows whether they're logical or rational?
-
Well, isnt law usually based on morality? Isnt that just going back to the same root of the argument?
Laws are absolutely based on morality. The fact that laws differ depending on where you are (capital punishment, for example), examples why not everyone's idea of what is moral and what is not is the same.
Note what Leviticus suggested regarding homosexuality in these two verses of concern:
18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
This was his idea of morality....seems a bit harsh by today's standards.
Just so you know, I oppose capital punishment.
-
I thought we were discussing morality. But OK, we can discuss legality. I think that abortion should be legal since (a) I don't consider a clump of cells to be a human being and (b) nobody should be forced to be an incubator and to live at the expense of or for the benefit of another.
I am suggesting that under a rational morality abortion is either moral or immoral - it can't be both. I happen to think that it's moral, but perhaps I have it wrong and someone can convince me that it's immoral. As for the folks who argue and demonstrate, who knows whether they're logical or rational?
I support a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy. However, I cannot agree that doing so is necessarily moral. It is still taking a life, just as it is with capital punishment.
Advances in medical science has complicated this issue from both sides. On the one side, infants who years ago would have been stillborn or died shortly after birth (as with extremely premature babies) often survive and flourish today. I was a premature baby about who the doctor said to my mother that I would not live. I am 67 years old with no apparent negative affects from having been born prematurely. On the other hand, because of advancements in medical science, infants are often saved only to endure a life of suffering as with conjoined twins who either cannot be separated or if they are one will die. How would you like to have to make that decision?
-
Laws are absolutely based on morality.
Are you really suggesting that all laws codify moral principles?
-
I support a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy. However, I cannot agree that doing so is necessarily moral. It is still taking a life, just as it is with capital punishment.
Is it always taking a life, or only sometimes? And do you think that (the morality of abortion aside) it is moral to force a woman to carry a fetus to term?
Advances in medical science has complicated this issue from both sides. On the one side, infants who years ago would have been stillborn or died shortly after birth (as with extremely premature babies) often survive and flourish today. I was a premature baby about who the doctor said to my mother that I would not live. I am 67 years old with no apparent negative affects from having been born prematurely. On the other hand, because of advancements in medical science, infants are often saved only to endure a life of suffering as with conjoined twins who either cannot be separated or if they are one will die. How would you like to have to make that decision?
Oh, there's little doubt that advances in medical science make the issue more and more difficult to deal with. There was a time when pregnancy was (for all intents and purposes) the line in the sand, as preemies almost always didn't survive. And that's where reasonable men can differ - at where the line should be.
As for making difficult decisions - I wouldn't like to have to make any. But we all know that's not realistic, and if I had to, then I would. I would try to be rational, although I concede that can be difficult, if not impossible when there's emotional involvement and high stress.
On a sidenote: you're 67? That's awesome. Do you regularly hit the gym?
-
The reason it is not difficult to do this is because so many folks quote and interpert the Bible to suit their own beliefs and feelings regardless of whether they are right or wrong. Ever witness a religious discussion between, say, Jehovah's Witnesses and Catholics where they quote the bible. It is as if they are discussing two very different books and each party believes their way is the only right way.
Not the same. You're talking about people who have actually read the Bible having different opinions about what various things mean.
That's different from someone who hasn't read it, but has opinions about whether portions are relevant vs. irrelevant.
-
Believing that the world is flat is not a moral issue. Your example doesn't hold water.
Not anymore it isn't. Plus, the issue is rationality. At one point, people rationally thought the world was flat. To believe otherwise had you deemed ignorant, blasphemous, nonsensical, or some combination thereof.
-
Not anymore it isn't. Plus, the issue is rationality. At one point, people rationally thought the world was flat. To believe otherwise had you deemed ignorant, blasphemous, nonsensical, or some combination thereof.
Rationality doesn't guarantee that you will make the right decisions in the absence of relevant facts.
-
Are you really suggesting that all laws codify moral principles?
What I am suggesting is that most laws have moral origins.
-
Is it always taking a life, or only sometimes? And do you think that (the morality of abortion aside) it is moral to force a woman to carry a fetus to term?
If the fetus is alive when you kill it, it is taking a life....always. Whether there is any justification for ending this life or not must be made on a case by case basis.
On a sidenote: you're 67? That's awesome. Do you regularly hit the gym?
This is a bad time to ask me this question. Up until I found out I had prostate cancer, I was very regular about working out. That was last January. Since then, I have lost ambition to work out and I am not sure why. I will be having a Da Vinci prostatectomy on July 2, 2012. I expect to come through it fine although there is an expected period of recovery. It may be a month or more before going to the gym would be either wise or practical. I sure would not show up there wearing a catheter. From what the doctor tells me, that will be for ten days following the surgery.
A couple of weeks ago, I paid my annual membership dues. I am relatively thrifty and I definitely don't like wasting money. Therefore, I expect I will be hitting the gym very soon....maybe tomorrow.
On the plus side, I tend to be thin. Since not working out, I have lost about 25 lbs. My clothes fit about the same, so I probably have lost some muscle and gained some fat. I am not taking any measurements because I really don't want to have any negative thoughts at this juncture. Finding out my arms are as thin as I think they are would probably make me feel bad.
The last time I had surgery was when I was 38 years old. I had a hernia repaired. The doctor told my wife I had the body of a 20 year old. I assume that meant he thought I was in great shape. I recovered very quickly from that surgery....of course, that was almost 30 years ago.
-
If the fetus is alive when you kill it, it is taking a life....always. Whether there is any justification for ending this life or not must be made on a case by case basis.
BUt what does it mean for a fetus to be alive?
This is a bad time to ask me this question. Up until I found out I had prostate cancer, I was very regular about working out. That was last January. Since then, I have lost ambition to work out and I am not sure why. I will be having a Da Vinci prostatectomy on July 2, 2012. I expect to come through it fine although there is an expected period of recovery. It may be a month or more before going to the gym would be either wise or practical. I sure would not show up there wearing a catheter. From what the doctor tells me, that will be for ten days following the surgery.
Oh wow. I hope that the surgery goes smoothly and you recover fully so you can get back to pushing some weights!
The last time I had surgery was when I was 38 years old. I had a hernia repaired. The doctor told my wife I had the body of a 20 year old. I assume that meant he thought I was in great shape. I recovered very quickly from that surgery....of course, that was almost 30 years ago.
Everyone is jealous of getbiggers ;)
-
BUt what does it mean for a fetus to be alive?
Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (i.e., living organisms) from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate. Biology is the science concerned with the study of life.
Living organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations. More complex living organisms can communicate through various means.
Despite my limited medical/scientific experience. I suggest to you that a fetus is alive because it meets all the criteria outlined in the previous two paragraphs.
-
Living organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations. More complex living organisms can communicate through various means.
A fetus doesn't possess all those characteristics while in the womb.
-
A fetus doesn't possess all those characteristics while in the womb.
Which of the previously described characteristics do you believe a fetus does not possess?
-
Usually, folks argue whether life begins at birth because they believe that is when they believe the soul enters the body. Another argument that is often made is that because a fetus is dependent on the host to sustain life, it is a parasite and not a separate living organism. This raises the question as to when the "parasite" fetus can survive outside the womb. As medical science advances making it possible for the fetus to live and flourish outside its mother in some manner of artificial womb-like environment at a earlier and earlier point, the definition of life using this criteria is challenged.
Understand that I am not trying to make an argument either for or against abortion here. What I am doing is simply pointing out that the definition of what constitutes a living being is in flux.
-
Man, has this thread gone way off topic! ;D
-
Man, has this thread gone way off topic! ;D
So, what's your point? Kidding! You are right, it this thread progressed into a whole new area, much like real life conversations do.
Did you wish to bring it back to the topic of what the Bible really says about homosexuality? Going full circle, I still maintain what the Bible has to say about homosexuality is not relevant to today's cultures in all but the most historically stagnated societies.
Why not embrace our fellow man despite any differences we may have. Homosexuality is not a disease that spreads like a plague. There is nothing to fear. The world hugely overpopulated. There is no reason to worry about someone wasting their "seed" on sex outside male female procreation. I just don't get why some people continue to have a problem with homosexually.
-
Which of the previously described characteristics do you believe a fetus does not possess?
I don't think that you can cogently argue that the fetus maintain homeostasis and it certainly cannot reproduce.
As to the definition of life: You're right that it can be tricky. I think that the one that you gave applies just as well to a weed growing on your lawn and even amoebas.
-
.
-
I don't think that you can cogently argue that the fetus maintain homeostasis and it certainly cannot reproduce.
As to the definition of life: You're right that it can be tricky. I think that the one that you gave applies just as well to a weed growing on your lawn and even amoebas.
As with all of us a fetus is a collection of cells. A fetus grows and develops by reproducing these cells. Homeostasis is a bit harder to explain. But, if you think of the fetus in terms of its parts rather than just the whole, I believe the definition of homeostasis applies.
Definition of HOMEOSTASIS
: a relatively stable state of equilibrium or a tendency toward such a state between the different but interdependent elements or groups of elements of an organism, population, or group
As for the definition of life, the one I gave is not my invention. Here are the citations:
1.^ a b Koshland Jr, Daniel E. (March 22, 2002). "The Seven Pillars of Life". Science 295 (5563): 2215–2216. DOI:10.1126/science.1068489. PMID 11910092. Retrieved 2009-05-25.
2.^ The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition, published by Houghton Mifflin Company, via Answers.com: "The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism."
"The characteristic state or condition of a living organism."
Are you suggesting that a fetus is of no more value than a weed in someone's lawn?
-
While I appreciate your willingness to provide me the dictionary definition of homeostasis, it really isn't needed. On top of that, homeostasis in a human is much more involved than the definition you quoted. A simple proof that the fetus cannot maintain homeostasis is the fact that the fetus cannot survive outside the womb without considerable artificial support, and even then that may not be sufficient.
I'm not assigning relative values and comparing weeds and fetuses. I'm merely stating that the definition of life you provided (whether yours or not) covers a wide range of organisms. I have no problem classifying an amoeba as alive, just like I have no problem classifying a plant as alive. But if you decide to use such an expansive definition for "life" then you really ought to be prepared to deal with the consequences: how many millions did you kill today by washing your hands?
The bottom line is that it's not enough to argue that the fetus is "alive" to argue that abortion is morally wrong.
-
While I appreciate your willingness to provide me the dictionary definition of homeostasis, it really isn't needed. On top of that, homeostasis in a human is much more involved than the definition you quoted. A simple proof that the fetus cannot maintain homeostasis is the fact that the fetus cannot survive outside the womb without considerable artificial support, and even then that may not be sufficient.
I'm not assigning relative values and comparing weeds and fetuses. I'm merely stating that the definition of life you provided (whether yours or not) covers a wide range of organisms. I have no problem classifying an amoeba as alive, just like I have no problem classifying a plant as alive. But if you decide to use such an expansive definition for "life" then you really ought to be prepared to deal with the consequences: how many millions did you kill today by washing your hands?
The bottom line is that it's not enough to argue that the fetus is "alive" to argue that abortion is morally wrong.
Your as big a pain in the ass as I am when it comes to details....so let us give this discussion a rest and everyone else a break here. Better and more learned folks than either you or I will decide what constitutes life and what does not when it comes to the fetus.
As for what is morally right or wrong, I have no intention of imposing my morals on someone else. Being a man, I cannot get pregnant, so what I believe about abortion is of little consequence. However, I believe if I were able to carry a child, I would probably not elect to have an abortion unless the fetus was seriously damaged and there was no hope for a decent life should it survive. This is just an opinion, you understand. I am entitled to that. It is not open to discussion.
-
While I appreciate your willingness to provide me the dictionary definition of homeostasis, it really isn't needed. On top of that, homeostasis in a human is much more involved than the definition you quoted. A simple proof that the fetus cannot maintain homeostasis is the fact that the fetus cannot survive outside the womb without considerable artificial support, and even then that may not be sufficient.
I'm not assigning relative values and comparing weeds and fetuses. I'm merely stating that the definition of life you provided (whether yours or not) covers a wide range of organisms. I have no problem classifying an amoeba as alive, just like I have no problem classifying a plant as alive. But if you decide to use such an expansive definition for "life" then you really ought to be prepared to deal with the consequences: how many millions did you kill today by washing your hands?
The bottom line is that it's not enough to argue that the fetus is "alive" to argue that abortion is morally wrong.
Professor Peter Singer: Kill infants and those with disabilities
Peter Singer, professor of ethics and the Chairman of the Ethics Department at Princeton University:
''I do not think it is always wrong to kill an innocent human being,''
''Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person.''
"we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life."
“The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is medieval.”
"During the next 35 years, the traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological, and demographic developments."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C04E2D91530F930A25753C1A96F958260
American economist Steve Forbes ceased his donations to Princeton University in 1999 because of Singer's appointment to an honorable position.
http://www.euthanasia.com/forb.html
Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal wrote to organizers of a Swedish book fair to which Singer was invited that "A professor of morals ... who justifies the right to kill handicapped newborns ... is in my opinion unacceptable for representation at your level."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/feder102898.asp
Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, the leading organization for blind people in the United States, strongly criticized Singer's appointment to the Princeton Faculty in a banquet speech at the organization's national convention in July 2001, claiming that Singer's support for euthanizing disabled babies could lead to disabled older children and adults being valued less as well.
http://www.nfb.org/Images/nfb/Publications/convent/banque01.htm
-
Professor Peter Singer: Kill infants and those with disabilities
Peter Singer, professor of ethics and the Chairman of the Ethics Department at Princeton University:
''I do not think it is always wrong to kill an innocent human being,''
''Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person.''
"we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life."
“The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is medieval.”
"During the next 35 years, the traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological, and demographic developments."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C04E2D91530F930A25753C1A96F958260
American economist Steve Forbes ceased his donations to Princeton University in 1999 because of Singer's appointment to an honorable position.
http://www.euthanasia.com/forb.html
Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal wrote to organizers of a Swedish book fair to which Singer was invited that "A professor of morals ... who justifies the right to kill handicapped newborns ... is in my opinion unacceptable for representation at your level."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/feder102898.asp
Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, the leading organization for blind people in the United States, strongly criticized Singer's appointment to the Princeton Faculty in a banquet speech at the organization's national convention in July 2001, claiming that Singer's support for euthanizing disabled babies could lead to disabled older children and adults being valued less as well.
http://www.nfb.org/Images/nfb/Publications/convent/banque01.htm
The quotes attributed to professer Singer are clearly disturbing when taken out of context as you've done here. Did you read the links you posted? While I may not agree with what he says, he makes some interesting points no matter how horrific they may seem to some people.
-
Professor Peter Singer: Kill infants and those with disabilities
Peter Singer, professor of ethics and the Chairman of the Ethics Department at Princeton University:
"we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life."
“The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is medieval.”
I believe that Singer may be getting misrepresented here. Remember, Peter Singer wrote at least two books on animal rights and morality, and how not treating animals as we do humans (more or less) is inherently immoral.
Your as big a pain in the ass as I am when it comes to details....so let us give this discussion a rest and everyone else a break here. Better and more learned folks than either you or I will decide what constitutes life and what does not when it comes to the fetus.
I think there's some inherent danger in just letting others decide on such matters, and for us to blindly accept their definition. Besides, even if an ironclad definition of life came out today that meant that you could say inerrantly "oh, the fetus isn't alive until this objective criterion is met" there would still be a great many people who wouldn't abide by it.
As for what is morally right or wrong, I have no intention of imposing my morals on someone else. Being a man, I cannot get pregnant, so what I believe about abortion is of little consequence. However, I believe if I were able to carry a child, I would probably not elect to have an abortion unless the fetus was seriously damaged and there was no hope for a decent life should it survive. This is just an opinion, you understand. I am entitled to that. It is not open to discussion.
Of course; I never said you weren't entitled to one. Thanks for the interesting discussion!
-
I believe that Singer may be getting misrepresented here. Remember, Peter Singer wrote at least two books on animal rights and morality, and how not treating animals as we do humans (more or less) is inherently immoral.
That's not Singer's argument. Singer bases his argument on the grounds that inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering is morally wrong, and that if we can prevent unnecessary pain and suffering without sacrificing anything of similar value, we have a moral obligation to do so. He takes from Bentham the idea that what makes something worthy of moral consideration is whether or not it can feel pain. He doesn't hold (which your take on his implies) that it is inherently immoral to treat animals differently. He would be in favor for example, of sacrificing one animal to prevent pain and suffering on a large number of humans, even though it would be treating the animal differently. He would say it would be morally good to do so (if one knew all the alternatives, consequences of alternatives, etc etc). He is a utilitarian in its strongest sense.
But at any rate, in regards to Loco. Posting bits and pieces of what a person says in an attempt to misrepresent a viewpoint and thereby make it easier to dismiss without trying to completely understand it, is dumbassness at its finest. Low move and should not be tolerated.
-
That's not Singer's argument. Singer bases his argument on the grounds that inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering is morally wrong, and that if we can prevent unnecessary pain and suffering without sacrificing anything of similar value, we have a moral obligation to do so. He takes from Bentham the idea that what makes something worthy of moral consideration is whether or not it can feel pain. He doesn't hold (which your take on his implies) that it is inherently immoral to treat animals differently. He would be in favor for example, of sacrificing one animal to prevent pain and suffering on a large number of humans, even though it would be treating the animal differently. He would say it would be morally good to do so (if one knew all the alternatives, consequences of alternatives, etc etc). He is a utilitarian in its strongest sense.
I'm not intimately familiar with Singer's work, but now that you mention it, I think what you wrote sounds pretty close to what I read in his book. Thanks.
-
While I appreciate your willingness to provide me the dictionary definition of homeostasis, it really isn't needed. On top of that, homeostasis in a human is much more involved than the definition you quoted. A simple proof that the fetus cannot maintain homeostasis is the fact that the fetus cannot survive outside the womb without considerable artificial support, and even then that may not be sufficient.
I'm not assigning relative values and comparing weeds and fetuses. I'm merely stating that the definition of life you provided (whether yours or not) covers a wide range of organisms. I have no problem classifying an amoeba as alive, just like I have no problem classifying a plant as alive. But if you decide to use such an expansive definition for "life" then you really ought to be prepared to deal with the consequences: how many millions did you kill today by washing your hands?
The bottom line is that it's not enough to argue that the fetus is "alive" to argue that abortion is morally wrong.
A newborn baby is just as dependent as an unborn child. Cannot survive on its own.
-
Professor Peter Singer: Kill infants and those with disabilities
Peter Singer, professor of ethics and the Chairman of the Ethics Department at Princeton University:
''I do not think it is always wrong to kill an innocent human being,''
''Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person.''
"we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life."
“The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is medieval.”
"During the next 35 years, the traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological, and demographic developments."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C04E2D91530F930A25753C1A96F958260
American economist Steve Forbes ceased his donations to Princeton University in 1999 because of Singer's appointment to an honorable position.
http://www.euthanasia.com/forb.html
Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal wrote to organizers of a Swedish book fair to which Singer was invited that "A professor of morals ... who justifies the right to kill handicapped newborns ... is in my opinion unacceptable for representation at your level."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/feder102898.asp
Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, the leading organization for blind people in the United States, strongly criticized Singer's appointment to the Princeton Faculty in a banquet speech at the organization's national convention in July 2001, claiming that Singer's support for euthanizing disabled babies could lead to disabled older children and adults being valued less as well.
http://www.nfb.org/Images/nfb/Publications/convent/banque01.htm
Ah yes. I remember this fool. How the heck does he stay on the payroll at Princeton??
-
A newborn baby is just as dependent as an unborn child. Cannot survive on its own.
No doubt. But it is an independent entity, unlike a fetus, and can maintain homeostasis by itself.
Ah yes. I remember this fool. How the heck does he stay on the payroll at Princeton??
Singer is no fool (although I disagree with some of his conclusions and his philosophy of ethics). Have you actually read any of his work, or are you just going based on what you once heard someone say a third cousin of his second wife told him?
-
No doubt. But it is an independent entity, unlike a fetus, and can maintain homeostasis by itself.
A newborn is not by any stretch independent. Cannot talk, walk, feed herself, bathe, or do pretty much anything else except cry, poop, and sleep. A newborn would die without substantial attention. No logical difference between a newborn and an unborn child when it comes to dependency.
-
A newborn is not by any stretch independent. Cannot talk, walk, feed herself, bathe, or do pretty much anything else except cry, poop, and sleep. A newborn would die without substantial attention. No logical difference between a newborn and an unborn child when it comes to dependency.
I said it is an independent ENTITY, not that it is independent. This may come as a surprise to you but words, do actually, have meaning. And there is a huge difference between a newborn and an unborn child. One is physically connected to another organism (the mother) and the other is not.
-
I said it is an independent ENTITY, not that it is independent. This may come as a surprise to you but words, do actually, have meaning. And there is a huge difference between a newborn and an unborn child. One is physically connected to another organism (the mother) and the other is not.
The fetus could almost be classified as a parasite, going by the technical definition.
-
No doubt. But it is an independent entity, unlike a fetus, and can maintain homeostasis by itself.
Singer is no fool (although I disagree with some of his conclusions and his philosophy of ethics). Have you actually read any of his work, or are you just going based on what you once heard someone say a third cousin of his second wife told him?
Yes, Singer is a fool. I've read enough to know he is a fool. Anyone saying this: ''Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person" is a fool. Especially someone who is supposed to be an ethics expert. How he made it to and stays on an Ivy League payroll is mystifying.
-
I said it is an independent ENTITY, not that it is independent. This may come as a surprise to you but words, do actually, have meaning. And there is a huge difference between a newborn and an unborn child. One is physically connected to another organism (the mother) and the other is not.
A distinction without a difference, especially if you're trying to draw some kind of moral distinction between a newborn and an unborn baby (particularly a third trimester baby).
As I've already highlighted, there is no logical distinction between an unborn baby and a newborn, whether you're talking about independence, an indpendent "entity," or whatever. I'm talking about an unborn child in the womb in the late third trimester. There are no physical differences. The lungs need almost the full pregnancy to be completely developed, but that's about it. A newborn is no less connected to her mother than a unborn child.
And who refers to women as "organisms"? lol
-
A distinction without a difference, especially if you're trying to draw some kind of moral distinction between a newborn and an unborn baby (particularly a third trimester baby).
As I've already highlighted, there is no logical distinction between an unborn baby and a newborn, whether you're talking about independence, an indpendent "entity," or whatever. I'm talking about an unborn child in the womb in the late third trimester. There are no physical differences. The lungs need almost the full pregnancy to be completely developed, but that's about it. A newborn is no less connected to her mother than a unborn child.
And who refers to women as "organisms"? lol
He's stepping back and looking at humans through larger eyes, I.E. that were just another animal that reproduces, survives, and feeds, only a little smarter.
Which, technically he is correct, we are just another organism on the face of the planet. Were just a helluva lot smarter than the rest of the organisms that inhabit this rock.
-
He's stepping back and looking at humans through larger eyes, I.E. that were just another animal that reproduces, survives, and feeds, only a little smarter.
Which, technically he is correct, we are just another organism on the face of the planet. Were just a helluva lot smarter than the rest of the organisms that inhabit this rock.
Yeah I understand. We are "organisms" or whatever other technical terms that apply, but who talks like that in real life? Maybe Singer? Or anyone else trying to devalue human life?
Was talking to someone the other day about abortion (which I rarely do), and she called an unborn child a "parasite." This is very often what people do when they're trying to justify a behavior that at its core is reprehensible. Dehumanizing the baby makes it easier to conclude killing an unborn baby is ok. Not true of everyone, but if you listen to how people frame the discussion, it's a very clear pattern.
-
Yes, Singer is a fool. I've read enough to know he is a fool. Anyone saying this: ''Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person" is a fool. Especially someone who is supposed to be an ethics expert. How he made it to and stays on an Ivy League payroll is mystifying.
wow lol you have obviously not read much on ethics or Singer.
In the future, try not to dismiss the viewpoints of others so quickly before reading them and understanding why they are saying what they are. Hell, Singer is one of the easiest to read.
-
wow lol you have obviously not read much on ethics or Singer.
In the future, try not to dismiss the viewpoints of others so quickly before reading them and understanding why they are saying what they are. Hell, Singer is one of the easiest to read.
I've read all I need to read from that fool. lol
If I understand that a viewpoint is stupid, why do I need to evaluate it further? Some viewpoints are so asinine that you only need to hear them once, without elaboration, to conclude they are absurd.
-
I've read all I need to read from that fool. lol
If I understand that a viewpoint is stupid, why do I need to evaluate it further? Some viewpoints are so asinine that you only need to hear them once, without elaboration, to conclude they are absurd.
The problem is you don't understand what Singer is saying. You're taking a snippet from a large body of work, stripping it of all context and then using it to paint the whole work.
The intellectually honest approach would be to actually read his books before criticizing them, but that requires effort and the willingness to examine other viewpoints. And that could you lead you to doubt your grimoire. And we wouldn't want that, would we?
-
The problem is you don't understand what Singer is saying. You're taking a snippet from a large body of work, stripping it of all context and then using it to paint the whole work.
The intellectually honest approach would be to actually read his books before criticizing them, but that requires effort and the willingness to examine other viewpoints. And that could you lead you to doubt your grimoire. And we wouldn't want that, would we?
That's actually pretty humorous. Isn't that exactly what many people do who criticize the Bible? A verse here, a verse there, completely out of context.
But this guy? Puh-leaze. There is nothing intellectually honest about reading more stupidity from a guy who lives in a whacked out world. Reminds me of that lipstick on a pick analogy.
And examining other viewpoints is terrific. I do it all the time. But examining other viewpoints isn't the same as arguing about stupid stuff. You know, like trying to argue murdering the elderly and disabled isn't immoral.
"Grimoire"? lol What the heck does that mean??
-
That's actually pretty humorous. Isn't that exactly what many people do who criticize the Bible? A verse here, a verse there, completely out of context.
You're right that some people do that. Some to criticize, others to promote (i.e. the whole "John 3:16" bit). It's not always wrong to focus on a quote. What's important is to be intellectually honest about it and to not strip out context and pretend that the whole body of the work boils down to 3 or 4 words.
And it's always wrong to judge a work - whether it's the Bible or Peter Singer's writings - from a few hand picked bits and pieces.
But this guy? Puh-leaze. There is nothing intellectually honest about reading more stupidity from a guy who lives in a whacked out world. Reminds me of that lipstick on a pick analogy.
As I said before - you're judging a body of work by a quote you misunderstand and have taken out of context. I don't necessarily agree with Singer's viewpoints, but at least he can rationally defend his positions - and his arguments are often surprisingly strong.
And examining other viewpoints is terrific. I do it all the time. But examining other viewpoints isn't the same as arguing about stupid stuff. You know, like trying to argue murdering the elderly and disabled isn't immoral.
I'm sorry to see that you confuse asking why something isn't moral and playing devil's advocate with actually supporting that position.
"Grimoire"? lol What the heck does that mean??
It's a book that contains magic spells and invocations.
-
You're right that some people do that. Some to criticize, others to promote (i.e. the whole "John 3:16" bit). It's not always wrong to focus on a quote. What's important is to be intellectually honest about it and to not strip out context and pretend that the whole body of the work boils down to 3 or 4 words.
And it's always wrong to judge a work - whether it's the Bible or Peter Singer's writings - from a few hand picked bits and pieces.
As I said before - you're judging a body of work by a quote you misunderstand and have taken out of context. I don't necessarily agree with Singer's viewpoints, but at least he can rationally defend his positions - and his arguments are often surprisingly strong.
I'm sorry to see that you confuse asking why something isn't moral and playing devil's advocate with actually supporting that position.
It's a book that contains magic spells and invocations.
Who is judging a body of work? I just think he's a fool. I don't need to read his body of work to reinforce or contradict my belief. Sometimes someone can say something so ridiculous that the only conclusion is they are a fool. Or on drugs. Or crazy. And in no way, shape, or form should he be teaching kids about ethics.
I don't have a book of magic spells and invocations, so not sure what you're talking about. Wait, I think I know what "invocations" means. Prayers? lol
Is this Deicide (or however you spell his name)? He likes to use them big words too. (Big word meaning "grimoire" not "invocation"). I have never heard that word in real life. I need to get out more. lol . . . .
-
You can summarily dismiss Singer if you want and remain ignorant of his actual positions and the arguments he makes to support them. You won't be the first or the last person to stick your fingers in your ears and go "LALALALALA". But that doesn't change the fact that he can articulate and support his "immoral" positions much better than you can support your "moral" ones.
As for your assertion that he shouldn't be teaching kids, I only have one thing to say. The notion is ridiculous. His personal opinions on ethics don't disqualify him from teaching philosophy in general and even ethics. He knows a lot more about the subject than you will ever know, and I'm sure he is a highly competent instructor. You have a mentality I've seen before: the mentality of someone who didn't set a foot inside an institute of higher education, and has no idea what the meaning or purpose of university is. In a university, instructors aren't there to spoon-feed you knowledge - they are there to teach you to think.
As for my vocabulary, I guess I apologize for having like more than like 5,000 words at my disposal. It's like, uhm, crazy. My brain like retains the information after I've read it like once.
-
You can summarily dismiss Singer if you want and remain ignorant of his actual positions and the arguments he makes to support them. You won't be the first or the last person to stick your fingers in your ears and go "LALALALALA". But that doesn't change the fact that he can articulate and support his "immoral" positions much better than you can support your "moral" ones.
As for your assertion that he shouldn't be teaching kids, I only have one thing to say. The notion is ridiculous. His personal opinions on ethics don't disqualify him from teaching philosophy in general and even ethics. He knows a lot more about the subject than you will ever know, and I'm sure he is a highly competent instructor. You have a mentality I've seen before: the mentality of someone who didn't set a foot inside an institute of higher education, and has no idea what the meaning or purpose of university is. In a university, instructors aren't there to spoon-feed you knowledge - they are there to teach you to think.
As for my vocabulary, I guess I apologize for having like more than like 5,000 words at my disposal. It's like, uhm, crazy. My brain like retains the information after I've read it like once.
Thank you for allowing me to summarily dismiss Singer as a fool. I've already done it. I could care less about comparing him to me. Don't need to do that. I was talking about him. What you're doing is very common: attack the person instead of the argument. And I even know the term for that: ad hominem. Impressive, no? :)
Nobody with that kind of mindset should be teaching kids. Absolutely not. But we can agree to disagree.
No need to apologize for your vocabulary. But I have the good fortune to have been around lots of people, from the completely uneducated to the highly educated, and what I've learned is the truly smart ones don't need to try and sound smart. They have the common sense, self assurance, and discretion to use their words carefully. For example, they don't take academic language and use it in normal conversation.
If you haven't done so already, you should read Emotional Intelligence by Goleman. Great book. Talks a lot about the true definition of intelligence.
-
....And in no way, shape, or form should he be teaching kids about ethics.
The folks studying at Princeton might take exception to you referring to them as kids.
-
....Nobody with that kind of mindset should be teaching kids. Absolutely not. But we can agree to disagree.
Here you go again.
-
The folks studying at Princeton might take exception to you referring to them as kids.
Adults aged 18-22 (on average) are kids. In fact, regarding men, a wise old lady told me once that you don't become a real man till you turn 40. :)
-
Adults aged 18-22 (on average) are kids. In fact, regarding men, a wise old lady told me once that you don't become a real man till you turn 40. :)
Thats ironic, considering at the shop we were just discussing the "over 40" mentality that hits men, when they suddenly seem to cease being able to retain knowledge (or simply refuse to accept new ideas) and seem to get this mental complex that they already know everything they need to know, and anything else is just immaturity. Its almost like a reversion to a childhood attitude, except with more wisdom.
Not flaming you, just thought it was funny.
-
Thats ironic, considering at the shop we were just discussing the "over 40" mentality that hits men, when they suddenly seem to cease being able to retain knowledge (or simply refuse to accept new ideas) and seem to get this mental complex that they already know everything they need to know, and anything else is just immaturity. Its almost like a reversion to a childhood attitude, except with more wisdom.
Not flaming you, just thought it was funny.
That is funny. I was actually just talking to a kid about the need to defer to people who have been around the block and try to learn from folks who have "been there, done that."
You're never too old to learn.
-
Adults aged 18-22 (on average) are kids. In fact, regarding men, a wise old lady told me once that you don't become a real man till you turn 40. :)
That's an opinion not a fact. The fact is that someone 18 years old is legally considered an adult.
-
Thats ironic, considering at the shop we were just discussing the "over 40" mentality that hits men, when they suddenly seem to cease being able to retain knowledge (or simply refuse to accept new ideas) and seem to get this mental complex that they already know everything they need to know, and anything else is just immaturity. Its almost like a reversion to a childhood attitude, except with more wisdom.
Not flaming you, just thought it was funny.
This begs the question; what is the age of the folks at the shop who were engaged in this discussion? My guess is that they are under 40 years old.
I've learned new things from folks as young as my grandchildren and from folks older than me....which makes them really old! LOL. I don't believe I am exceptional in that I retain most of what I learn and know and I am always open to new ideas. I'll stop learning things the day I die and not a moment before then, if I am lucky. I believe you are stereotyping folks who are over 40 years old.
-
Thank you for allowing me to summarily dismiss Singer as a fool. I've already done it. I could care less about comparing him to me. Don't need to do that. I was talking about him. What you're doing is very common: attack the person instead of the argument. And I even know the term for that: ad hominem. Impressive, no? :)
Quite impressive. Alas, I didn't attack you. I challenged your close-mindedness and your summary dismissal of Singer's work based on your misunderstanding.
Nobody with that kind of mindset should be teaching kids. Absolutely not. But we can agree to disagree.
Right... you're absolutely right. No "kids" attending University (and one of the world's most prestigious one, at that) should ever be exposed to different and new ideas and challenged to consider them, examine them and decide for themselves. They should just be spoon-fed aphorisms, to be memorized and repeated.
And just because a Professor has published something you disagree with and doesn't sit well with your particular theory of ethics - such as it is - means that he's unfit to teach.
No need to apologize for your vocabulary. But I have the good fortune to have been around lots of people, from the completely uneducated to the highly educated, and what I've learned is the truly smart ones don't need to try and sound smart. They have the common sense, self assurance, and discretion to use their words carefully. For example, they don't take academic language and use it in normal conversation.
You're right - truly smart people don't need to try to sound smart; they talk simply, eloquently, and measure their words carefully. As to whether they have common sense, I'll again point out that common sense isn't really all that common.
If you haven't done so already, you should read Emotional Intelligence by Goleman. Great book. Talks a lot about the true definition of intelligence.
Thanks for the pointer. I reserved a copy from the library, but probably won't get to it for a couple of weeks.
That is funny. I was actually just talking to a kid about the need to defer to people who have been around the block and try to learn from folks who have "been there, done that."
You're never too old to learn.
I never saw the wisdom in blindly deferring to those who are older simply because of their age - it's just a number after all. One should certainly take advantage of and learn from the experiences of others, but never blindly. We have brains for a reason.
-
The quotes attributed to professer Singer are clearly disturbing when taken out of context as you've done here. Did you read the links you posted? While I may not agree with what he says, he makes some interesting points no matter how horrific they may seem to some people.
They were not taken out of context. Explain this:
American economist Steve Forbes ceased his donations to Princeton University in 1999 because of Singer's appointment to an honorable position.
http://www.euthanasia.com/forb.html
Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal wrote to organizers of a Swedish book fair to which Singer was invited that "A professor of morals ... who justifies the right to kill handicapped newborns ... is in my opinion unacceptable for representation at your level."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/feder102898.asp
Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, the leading organization for blind people in the United States, strongly criticized Singer's appointment to the Princeton Faculty in a banquet speech at the organization's national convention in July 2001, claiming that Singer's support for euthanizing disabled babies could lead to disabled older children and adults being valued less as well.
http://www.nfb.org/Images/nfb/Publications/convent/banque01.htm
-
That's an opinion not a fact. The fact is that someone 18 years old is legally considered an adult.
1 65 year old, 1 37 year old engineer, 1 32 year old machinist, and myself, 27.
Ironically the 65 year old brought it up.
-
They were not taken out of context. Explain this:
For the last time, Singer is one of the easiest public philosophers to read. He can explain it himself. Read him and understand him before objecting to him. There has been no reason explaining why Singer is wrong, just begging the question. I've seen you post those links before in that same order in several different threads, so it seems like you have this sort of stuff saved in a file to copy and paste whenever Singer's name comes up. Lot of intellectual laziness coming from people who ordinarily seem to object to others oversimplifying and misinterpreting the bible to fit preconceived notions without ever trying to put forth any effort to understand the bible.
bizarre :-\
-
For the last time, Singer is one of the easiest public philosophers to read. He can explain it himself. Read him and understand him before objecting to him. There has been no reason explaining why Singer is wrong, just begging the question. I've seen you post those links before in that same order in several different threads, so it seems like you have this sort of stuff saved in a file to copy and paste whenever Singer's name comes up. Lot of intellectual laziness coming from people who ordinarily seem to object to others oversimplifying and misinterpreting the bible to fit preconceived notions without ever trying to put forth any effort to understand the bible.
bizarre :-\
"Singer's mother suffers from severe Alzheimer's disease, and so she no longer qualifies as a person by his own standards, yet he spends considerable sums on her care. This apparent contradiction of his principles has not gone unnoticed by the media. When I asked him about it during our interview at his Manhattan apartment in late July, he sighed and explained that he is not the only person who is involved in making decisions about his mother (he has a sister). He did say that if he were solely responsible, his mother might not be alive today." (Singer's mother died shortly thereafter.)
http://reason.com/archives/2000/12/01/the-pursuit-of-happiness-peter/singlepage
When Singer's mother became too ill to live alone, Singer and
his sister hired a team of home health-care aides to look after
her. &guy's mother has lost her ability to reason, to be a person,
as he defines the term[/b]. So I asked him how a man who has written
that we ought to do what is morally right without regard to proximity
or family relationships could possibly spend tens of thousands
of dollars a year on private care for his mother. He replied that
it was "probably not the best use you could make of my money.
That is true. But it does provide employment for a number of people
who find something worthwhile in what they're doing.''
This is a noble sentiment, but it hardly fits with Peter Singer's
rules for living an ethical life. He once told me that he has no
respect for people who donate funds for research on breast
cancer or heart disease in the hope that it might indirectly save
them or members of their family from illness, since they could
be using that money to save the lives of the poor. ("That
is not charity,'' he said. "It's self- interest.")
http://www.michaelspecter.com/1999/09/the-dangerous-philosopher/
-
They were not taken out of context. Explain this:
American economist Steve Forbes ceased his donations to Princeton University in 1999 because of Singer's appointment to an honorable position.
http://www.euthanasia.com/forb.html
Steve Forbes can do whatever he wants. I'm not going to explain Steve Forbes's actions.
Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal wrote to organizers of a Swedish book fair to which Singer was invited that "A professor of morals ... who justifies the right to kill handicapped newborns ... is in my opinion unacceptable for representation at your level."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/feder102898.asp
Simon Wiesenthal is entitled to his opinion and he can explain it himself if he so chooses. I'm not going to explain his opinions for him.
Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, the leading organization for blind people in the United States, strongly criticized Singer's appointment to the Princeton Faculty in a banquet speech at the organization's national convention in July 2001, claiming that Singer's support for euthanizing disabled babies could lead to disabled older children and adults being valued less as well.
http://www.nfb.org/Images/nfb/Publications/convent/banque01.htm
Marc Maurer can claim whatever he wants and he can defend his own claims. I'm not going to explain or justify his claims for him.
"Singer's mother suffers from severe Alzheimer's disease, and so she no longer qualifies as a person by his own standards, yet he spends considerable sums on her care. This apparent contradiction of his principles has not gone unnoticed by the media. When I asked him about it during our interview at his Manhattan apartment in late July, he sighed and explained that he is not the only person who is involved in making decisions about his mother (he has a sister). He did say that if he were solely responsible, his mother might not be alive today." (Singer's mother died shortly thereafter.)
http://reason.com/archives/2000/12/01/the-pursuit-of-happiness-peter/singlepage
So?
When Singer's mother became too ill to live alone, Singer and
his sister hired a team of home health-care aides to look after
her. Singer's mother has lost her ability to reason, to be a person,
as he defines the term. So I asked him how a man who has written
that we ought to do what is morally right without regard to proximity
or family relationships could possibly spend tens of thousands
of dollars a year on private care for his mother. He replied that
it was "probably not the best use you could make of my money.
That is true. But it does provide employment for a number of people
who find something worthwhile in what they're doing.''
Even if she no longer qualified as a person under Singer's definition, it is still morally defensible under Singer's theory of ethics and morality, to spend money to keep her alive. The guy writing this piece clearly misunderstands (or, more likely, misrepresents) what is a fairly straightforward philosophy. You can hardly blame Singer for that.
This is a noble sentiment, but it hardly fits with Peter Singer's
rules for living an ethical life. He once told me that he has no
respect for people who donate funds for research on breast
cancer or heart disease in the hope that it might indirectly save
them or members of their family from illness, since they could
be using that money to save the lives of the poor. ("That
is not charity,'' he said. "It's self- interest.")
http://www.michaelspecter.com/1999/09/the-dangerous-philosopher/
This guy is comparing apples and oranges because they both grow on trees...
-
Steve Forbes can do whatever he wants. I'm not going to explain Steve Forbes's actions.
Simon Wiesenthal is entitled to his opinion and he can explain it himself if he so chooses. I'm not going to explain his opinions for him.
Marc Maurer can claim whatever he wants and he can defend his own claims. I'm not going to explain or justify his claims for him.
So?
Even if she no longer qualified as a person under Singer's definition, it is still morally defensible under Singer's theory of ethics and morality, to spend money to keep her alive. The guy writing this piece clearly misunderstands (or, more likely, misrepresents) what is a fairly straightforward philosophy. You can hardly blame Singer for that.
This guy is comparing apples and oranges because they both grow on trees...
Are you Primemuscle?
-
Very sad and scary to see people here lining up behind Peter Singer, much like the German people lined up behind Hitler. :-\
-
1 65 year old, 1 37 year old engineer, 1 32 year old machinist, and myself, 27.
Ironically the 65 year old brought it up.
Did you mean to respond to this post rather than the one you quoted: This begs the question; what is the age of the folks at the shop who were engaged in this discussion? My guess is that they are under 40 years old.
-
Very sad and scary to see people here lining up behind Peter Singer, much like the German people lined up behind Hitler. :-\
You are comparing Peter Singer and Adolf Hitler... Seriously? Your name on here is quite apt.
-
Are you Primemuscle?
No he is not. But then, you know what they say about great minds. "Great minds think alike." Prov. Very intelligent people tend to come up with the same ideas at the same time. (Used playfully, to commend someone for expressing the same thing you were thinking of; implies that you are congratulating that person for being as smart as you are. Believe it or not, I was just thinking exactly that which Avxo posted in reply to you.
Thanks Avxo, for replying for me.
-
You are comparing Peter Singer and Adolf Hitler... Seriously? Your name on here is quite apt.
Nazi Euthanasia Program (Action T4)
The "euthanasia campaign" of mass murder gathered momentum on 14 January 1940 when the "handicapped" were killed with gas vans and killing centres, eventually leading to the deaths of 70,000 adult Germans.[45] Professor Robert Jay Lifton, author of The Nazi Doctors and a leading authority on the T4 program, contrasts this program with what he considers to be a genuine euthanasia. He explains that the Nazi version of "euthanasia" was based on the work of Adolf Jost, who published The Right to Death (Das Recht auf den Tod) in 1895. Lifton writes: "Jost argued that control over the death of the individual must ultimately belong to the social organism, the state. This concept is in direct opposition to the Anglo-American concept of euthanasia, which emphasizes the individual's 'right to die' or 'right to death' or 'right to his or her own death,' as the ultimate human claim. In contrast, Jost was pointing to the state's right to kill. [...] Ultimately the argument was biological: 'The rights to death [are] the key to the fitness of life.' The state must own death—must kill—in order to keep the social organism alive and healthy."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanise#Nazi_Euthanasia_Program_.28Action_T4.29
-
Very sad and scary to see people here lining up behind Peter Singer, much like the German people lined up behind Hitler. :-\
To acknowledge that someone, like Peter Singer has a point is not the same thing as "lining up behind" them....particularly not in the context you've suggested.
-
Nazi Euthanasia Program (Action T4)
The "euthanasia campaign" of mass murder gathered momentum on 14 January 1940 when the "handicapped" were killed with gas vans and killing centres, eventually leading to the deaths of 70,000 adult Germans.[45] Professor Robert Jay Lifton, author of The Nazi Doctors and a leading authority on the T4 program, contrasts this program with what he considers to be a genuine euthanasia. He explains that the Nazi version of "euthanasia" was based on the work of Adolf Jost, who published The Right to Death (Das Recht auf den Tod) in 1895. Lifton writes: "Jost argued that control over the death of the individual must ultimately belong to the social organism, the state. This concept is in direct opposition to the Anglo-American concept of euthanasia, which emphasizes the individual's 'right to die' or 'right to death' or 'right to his or her own death,' as the ultimate human claim. In contrast, Jost was pointing to the state's right to kill. [...] Ultimately the argument was biological: 'The rights to death [are] the key to the fitness of life.' The state must own death—must kill—in order to keep the social organism alive and healthy."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanise#Nazi_Euthanasia_Program_.28Action_T4.29
Jost may have argued that "control over the death of the individual must ultimately belong to the social organism, the state" but that's not even close to what Peter Singer argues. You clearly have no idea what his theory of ethics is, so why not read it first, instead of making a fool of yourself by comparing him to Adolf Hitler?
-
Jost may have argued that "control over the death of the individual must ultimately belong to the social organism, the state" but that's not even close to what Peter Singer argues. You clearly have no idea what his theory of ethics is, so why not read it first, instead of making a fool of yourself by comparing him to Adolf Hitler?
Let's see:
Hitler: "Kill all people with disabilities"
Peter Singer: "Kill all people with disabilities"
Yeah, I'm such a fool. ::)
-
Let's see:
Hitler: "Kill all people with disabilities"
Peter Singer: "Kill all people with disabilities"
Yeah, I'm a fool. ::)
That is not what Singer says. Since you've been corrected more than once and continue to repeat that I can only conclude that you are blatantly and knowingly lying. *plonk*
-
That is not what Singer says. Since you've been corrected more than once and continue to repeat that I can only conclude that you are blatantly and knowingly lying. *plonk*
I am the only one here who has posted exactly what Singer actually said. So if anyone is lying here, it is you.
-
Peter Albert David Singer (born 6 July 1946) is an Australian philosopher who is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne. He specialises in applied ethics and approaches ethical issues from a secular, preference utilitarian perspective.
He has served, on two occasions, as chair of philosophy at Monash University, where he founded its Centre for Human Bioethics. In 1996, he unsuccessfully stood as a Greens candidate for the Australian Senate. In 2004, he was recognised as the Australian Humanist of the Year by the Council of Australian Humanist Societies. He has been voted one of Australia's ten most influential public intellectuals. Singer serves on the Advisory Board of Incentives for Global Health, the NGO formed to develop the Health Impact Fund proposal.
Outside academic circles, Singer is best known for his book Animal Liberation, widely regarded as the touchstone of the animal liberation movement. Not all members of the animal liberation movement share this view, and Singer himself has said the media overstates his status. His views on that and other issues in bioethics have attracted attention and a degree of controversy.
Singer's most comprehensive work, Practical Ethics (1979), analyzes in detail why and how living beings' interests should be weighed. His principle of equal consideration of interests does not dictate equal treatment of all those with interests, since different interests warrant different treatment. All have an interest in avoiding pain, for instance, but relatively few have an interest in cultivating their abilities. Not only does his principle justify different treatment for different interests, but it allows different treatment for the same interest when diminishing marginal utility is a factor. For example, this approach would privilege a starving person's interest in food over the same interest of someone who is only slightly hungry.
Among the more important human interests are those in avoiding pain, in developing one's abilities, in satisfying basic needs for food and shelter, in enjoying warm personal relationships, in being free to pursue one's projects without interference, "and many others". The fundamental interest that entitles a being to equal consideration is the capacity for "suffering and/or enjoyment or happiness". He holds that a being's interests should always be weighed according to that being's concrete properties. He favors a 'journey' model of life, which measures the wrongness of taking a life by the degree to which doing so frustrates a life journey's goals. The journey model is tolerant of some frustrated desire and explains why persons who have embarked on their journeys are not replaceable. Only a personal interest in continuing to live brings the journey model into play. This model also explains the priority that Singer attaches to interests over trivial desires and pleasures.
-
I am the only one here who has posted exactly what Singer actually said. So if anyone is lying here, it is you.
Singer has NEVER said that we should "kill all people with disabilities" something which you suggested he said. I challenge you to provide the exact reference. You won't, because you can't.
-
Adolf Hitler (German: 20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP), commonly referred to as the Nazi Party). He was chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945 and dictator of Nazi Germany (as Führer und Reichskanzler) from 1934 to 1945. Hitler is commonly associated with the rise of fascism in Europe, World War II, and the Holocaust.
Hitler's foreign and domestic policies had the goal of seizing Lebensraum ("living space") for the Germanic people. He directed the rearmament of Germany and the invasion of Poland by the Wehrmacht in September 1939, leading to the outbreak of World War II in Europe. Under Hitler's rule, in 1941 German forces and their European allies occupied most of Europe and North Africa. These gains were gradually reversed, and in 1945 the Allied armies defeated the German army. Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in the systematic murder of eleven million people, including nearly six million Jews.
A main Nazi concept was the notion of racial hygiene. On 15 September 1935, Hitler presented two laws—known as the Nuremberg Laws—to the Reichstag. The laws banned marriage between non-Jewish and Jewish Germans, and forbade the employment of non-Jewish women under the age of 45 in Jewish households. The laws deprived so-called "non-Aryans" of the benefits of German citizenship. Hitler's early eugenic policies targeted children with physical and developmental disabilities in a programme dubbed Action Brandt, and later authorized a euthanasia programme for adults with serious mental and physical handicaps, now usually referred to as Action T4.
Although no specific order from Hitler authorising the mass killings has surfaced, he approved the Einsatzgruppen—killing squads that followed the German army through Poland, the Baltic, and the Soviet Union—and he was well informed about their activities. During interrogations by Soviet intelligence officers, the records of which were declassified over fifty years later, Hitler's valet, Heinz Linge, and his adjutant, Otto Günsche, stated that Hitler had a direct interest in the development of gas chambers.
Between 1939 and 1945, the SS, assisted by collaborationist governments and recruits from occupied countries, were responsible for the deaths of eleven to fourteen million people, including about six million Jews, representing two-thirds of the Jewish population in Europe, and between 500,000 and 1,500,000 Roma. Deaths took place in concentration and extermination camps, ghettos, and through mass executions. Many victims of the Holocaust were gassed to death, whereas others died of starvation or disease while working as slave labourers.
Hitler's policies also resulted in the killings of Poles and Soviet prisoners of war, communists and other political opponents, homosexuals, the physically and mentally disabled, Jehovah's Witnesses, Adventists, and trade unionists. Hitler never appeared to have visited the concentration camps and did not speak publicly about the killings.
-
Peter Albert David Singer (born 6 July 1946) is an Australian philosopher who is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne. He specialises in applied ethics and approaches ethical issues from a secular, preference utilitarian perspective.
He has served, on two occasions, as chair of philosophy at Monash University, where he founded its Centre for Human Bioethics. In 1996, he unsuccessfully stood as a Greens candidate for the Australian Senate. In 2004, he was recognised as the Australian Humanist of the Year by the Council of Australian Humanist Societies. He has been voted one of Australia's ten most influential public intellectuals. Singer serves on the Advisory Board of Incentives for Global Health, the NGO formed to develop the Health Impact Fund proposal.
Outside academic circles, Singer is best known for his book Animal Liberation, widely regarded as the touchstone of the animal liberation movement. Not all members of the animal liberation movement share this view, and Singer himself has said the media overstates his status. His views on that and other issues in bioethics have attracted attention and a degree of controversy.
Singer's most comprehensive work, Practical Ethics (1979), analyzes in detail why and how living beings' interests should be weighed. His principle of equal consideration of interests does not dictate equal treatment of all those with interests, since different interests warrant different treatment. All have an interest in avoiding pain, for instance, but relatively few have an interest in cultivating their abilities. Not only does his principle justify different treatment for different interests, but it allows different treatment for the same interest when diminishing marginal utility is a factor. For example, this approach would privilege a starving person's interest in food over the same interest of someone who is only slightly hungry.
Among the more important human interests are those in avoiding pain, in developing one's abilities, in satisfying basic needs for food and shelter, in enjoying warm personal relationships, in being free to pursue one's projects without interference, "and many others". The fundamental interest that entitles a being to equal consideration is the capacity for "suffering and/or enjoyment or happiness". He holds that a being's interests should always be weighed according to that being's concrete properties. He favors a 'journey' model of life, which measures the wrongness of taking a life by the degree to which doing so frustrates a life journey's goals. The journey model is tolerant of some frustrated desire and explains why persons who have embarked on their journeys are not replaceable. Only a personal interest in continuing to live brings the journey model into play. This model also explains the priority that Singer attaches to interests over trivial desires and pleasures.
So?
-
Adolf Hitler (German: 20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP), commonly referred to as the Nazi Party). He was chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945 and dictator of Nazi Germany (as Führer und Reichskanzler) from 1934 to 1945. Hitler is commonly associated with the rise of fascism in Europe, World War II, and the Holocaust.
Hitler's foreign and domestic policies had the goal of seizing Lebensraum ("living space") for the Germanic people. He directed the rearmament of Germany and the invasion of Poland by the Wehrmacht in September 1939, leading to the outbreak of World War II in Europe. Under Hitler's rule, in 1941 German forces and their European allies occupied most of Europe and North Africa. These gains were gradually reversed, and in 1945 the Allied armies defeated the German army. Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in the systematic murder of eleven million people, including nearly six million Jews.
A main Nazi concept was the notion of racial hygiene. On 15 September 1935, Hitler presented two laws—known as the Nuremberg Laws—to the Reichstag. The laws banned marriage between non-Jewish and Jewish Germans, and forbade the employment of non-Jewish women under the age of 45 in Jewish households. The laws deprived so-called "non-Aryans" of the benefits of German citizenship. Hitler's early eugenic policies targeted children with physical and developmental disabilities in a programme dubbed Action Brandt, and later authorized a euthanasia programme for adults with serious mental and physical handicaps, now usually referred to as Action T4.
Although no specific order from Hitler authorising the mass killings has surfaced, he approved the Einsatzgruppen—killing squads that followed the German army through Poland, the Baltic, and the Soviet Union—and he was well informed about their activities. During interrogations by Soviet intelligence officers, the records of which were declassified over fifty years later, Hitler's valet, Heinz Linge, and his adjutant, Otto Günsche, stated that Hitler had a direct interest in the development of gas chambers.
Between 1939 and 1945, the SS, assisted by collaborationist governments and recruits from occupied countries, were responsible for the deaths of eleven to fourteen million people, including about six million Jews, representing two-thirds of the Jewish population in Europe, and between 500,000 and 1,500,000 Roma. Deaths took place in concentration and extermination camps, ghettos, and through mass executions. Many victims of the Holocaust were gassed to death, whereas others died of starvation or disease while working as slave labourers.
Hitler's policies also resulted in the killings of Poles and Soviet prisoners of war, communists and other political opponents, homosexuals, the physically and mentally disabled, Jehovah's Witnesses, Adventists, and trade unionists. Hitler never appeared to have visited the concentration camps and did not speak publicly about the killings.
So?
-
Singer has NEVER said that we should "kill all people with disabilities" something which you suggested he said. I challenge you to provide the exact reference. You won't, because you can't.
Haven't I already done that and more? Whatcha talkin bout Willis?
-
Haven't I already done that and more? Whatcha talkin bout Willis?
No, you haven't. You just put quotes around something you typed and attributed it to Singer. Can you provide a specific reference to writings by Singer where he says the exacts words you attribute to him?
-
No, you haven't. You just put quotes around something you typed and attributed it to Singer. Can you provide a specific reference to writings by Singer where he says the exacts words you attribute to him?
I did not write anything. I copied and pasted from the articles for which I provided a link. The articles provide Singer's quotes and references. Anything else I can get you, avxo?
-
I did not write anything.
Of course not.
-
Of course not.
Check the links I provided.
Anything else I can get you, avxo?
-
That's an opinion not a fact. The fact is that someone 18 years old is legally considered an adult.
Ok. Yes, it's an opinion. But it's one most grown folks agree with. In fact, I can't recall ever talking to an older adult who disagreed with the following: if I knew then what I know now . . . . Or: we really don't know squat at age 21.
I'm not talking about whether someone is legally considered an adult. That has no bearing on maturity, development, experience, wisdom, etc.
-
Quite impressive. Alas, I didn't attack you. I challenged your close-mindedness and your summary dismissal of Singer's work based on your misunderstanding.
Right... you're absolutely right. No "kids" attending University (and one of the world's most prestigious one, at that) should ever be exposed to different and new ideas and challenged to consider them, examine them and decide for themselves. They should just be spoon-fed aphorisms, to be memorized and repeated.
And just because a Professor has published something you disagree with and doesn't sit well with your particular theory of ethics - such as it is - means that he's unfit to teach.
You're right - truly smart people don't need to try to sound smart; they talk simply, eloquently, and measure their words carefully. As to whether they have common sense, I'll again point out that common sense isn't really all that common.
Thanks for the pointer. I reserved a copy from the library, but probably won't get to it for a couple of weeks.
I never saw the wisdom in blindly deferring to those who are older simply because of their age - it's just a number after all. One should certainly take advantage of and learn from the experiences of others, but never blindly. We have brains for a reason.
This is addressing the person instead of the argument: "He knows a lot more about the subject than you will ever know, and I'm sure he is a highly competent instructor. You have a mentality I've seen before: the mentality of someone who didn't set a foot inside an institute of higher education, and has no idea what the meaning or purpose of university is."
The discussion is about the fact Singer is a fool, not my mentality, educational level, etc. But it's a typical tactic when someone gets frustrated or is just unable to address the facts of a particular subject. I use ad hominem too, but at least I admit it. :)
Kids should be challenged. They should be engaged. They should be allowed to develop critical thinking skills. They should not be exposed to a delusional fool whose ideas are best left in old Nazi Germany.
Most truly smart people don't actually talk "eloquently." They just talk. They also know their audience.
Common sense is very common.
-
"Singer's mother suffers from severe Alzheimer's disease, and so she no longer qualifies as a person by his own standards, yet he spends considerable sums on her care. This apparent contradiction of his principles has not gone unnoticed by the media. When I asked him about it during our interview at his Manhattan apartment in late July, he sighed and explained that he is not the only person who is involved in making decisions about his mother (he has a sister). He did say that if he were solely responsible, his mother might not be alive today." (Singer's mother died shortly thereafter.)
http://reason.com/archives/2000/12/01/the-pursuit-of-happiness-peter/singlepage
When Singer's mother became too ill to live alone, Singer and
his sister hired a team of home health-care aides to look after
her. &guy's mother has lost her ability to reason, to be a person,
as he defines the term[/b]. So I asked him how a man who has written
that we ought to do what is morally right without regard to proximity
or family relationships could possibly spend tens of thousands
of dollars a year on private care for his mother. He replied that
it was "probably not the best use you could make of my money.
That is true. But it does provide employment for a number of people
who find something worthwhile in what they're doing.''
This is a noble sentiment, but it hardly fits with Peter Singer's
rules for living an ethical life. He once told me that he has no
respect for people who donate funds for research on breast
cancer or heart disease in the hope that it might indirectly save
them or members of their family from illness, since they could
be using that money to save the lives of the poor. ("That
is not charity,'' he said. "It's self- interest.")
http://www.michaelspecter.com/1999/09/the-dangerous-philosopher/
Geeze. :-\
-
This is addressing the person instead of the argument: "He knows a lot more about the subject than you will ever know, and I'm sure he is a highly competent instructor. You have a mentality I've seen before: the mentality of someone who didn't set a foot inside an institute of higher education, and has no idea what the meaning or purpose of university is."
The discussion is about the fact Singer is a fool, not my mentality, educational level, etc. But it's a typical tactic when someone gets frustrated or is just unable to address the facts of a particular subject. I use ad hominem too, but at least I admit it. :)
No. The discussion is about you not understanding Singer's arguments and not caring to understand it. That attitude is, in my experience, fairly typical of those who haven't had a rigorous education, a fact which I pointed out.
Kids should be challenged. They should be engaged. They should be allowed to develop critical thinking skills. They should not be exposed to a delusional fool whose ideas are best left in old Nazi Germany.
University students typically aren't kids, although there are a few really rare exceptions. You agree that they should be allowed to develop critical skills, yet you somehow think that will be done without exposing them to other ideas that they can evaluate.
As for ad homimen attacks, now who's the one launching them? Singer isn't delusional and he is no fool. And as for this idea that loco threw out there and which you are parroting, that his theory of ethics is somehow sharing a root with Nazi ideas, it's preposterous. And even if it was true, you'd have no way of knowing it, since you don't know what Singer's theory of ethics is all about - having admitted that you've never read it and don't plan on reading it. And that admission is what makes your opinion on the subject worthless and irrelevant.
Most truly smart people don't actually talk "eloquently." They just talk. They also know their audience.
... okie dokie.
Common sense is very common.
You keep saying that, but you haven't even explained what this common sense is.
-
No. The discussion is about you not understanding Singer's arguments and not caring to understand it. That attitude is, in my experience, fairly typical of those who haven't had a rigorous education, a fact which I pointed out.
University students typically aren't kids, although there are a few really rare exceptions. You agree that they should be allowed to develop critical skills, yet you somehow think that will be done without exposing them to other ideas that they can evaluate.
As for ad homimen attacks, now who's the one launching them? Singer isn't delusional and he is no fool. And as for this idea that loco threw out there and which you are parroting, that his theory of ethics is somehow sharing a root with Nazi ideas, it's preposterous. And even if it was true, you'd have no way of knowing it, since you don't know what Singer's theory of ethics is all about - having admitted that you've never read it and don't plan on reading it. And that admission is what makes your opinion on the subject worthless and irrelevant.
... okie dokie.
You keep saying that, but you haven't even explained what this common sense is.
No. The discussion is about Singer being a fool.
What is a "rigorous education"?
University students are, on average, 18-22 or so. Those are kids. They don't know their head from their rear end. This doesn't mean they are dumb, always immature, unable to take care of themselves, etc. It just means they are still impressionable and have a lot of growing to do.
I never said they should not be exposed to "other ideas." They should not be exposed to stupid ideas passed off as some viable ethical theory.
I know enough about Singer's ideas to call him a fool. I'm relying on his own words, which loco posted. Good enough for me.
-
... okie dokie.
Now you're speaking my language. lol
-
And to close out my participation in this discussion, I'll just add that for someone comparing Singer and his ideology to the Nazis, Beach Bum it seems to me that your ideology, namely the suppressing of opinions you do not care to understand but which you consider unfit, is a lot closer to a Nazi mentality than Singer will ever be.
-
Did you mean to respond to this post rather than the one you quoted:
Indeed. My bad. ;D
-
And to close out my participation in this discussion, I'll just add that for someone comparing Singer and his ideology to the Nazis, Beach Bum it seems to me that your ideology, namely the suppressing of opinions you do not care to understand but which you consider unfit, is a lot closer to a Nazi mentality than Singer will ever be.
::)
-
And to close out my participation in this discussion, I'll just add that for someone comparing Singer and his ideology to the Nazis, Beach Bum it seems to me that your ideology, namely the suppressing of opinions you do not care to understand but which you consider unfit, is a lot closer to a Nazi mentality than Singer will ever be.
avxo,
Let me explain it to you again. I really don't mind explaining it a second time. It's very simple:
There were thousands of people who were killed by the Nazis for one, very specific reason. They had one or more disabilities.
Peter Singer said that he would kill an infant, for one, very specific reason. The infant has one or more disabilities.
Now, if Peter Singer was some nut, or unknown guy, or someone who is very much disliked it might not be a big deal. But Peter Singer is a professor of ethics and the Chairman of the Ethics Department at Princeton University. College kids get to listen to him and read his stuff. Many people look up to him and admire him. He is entitled to his views, and people are entitled to listen to him and come to agree with him. And that is what is so sad and scary.
Nazi Euthanasia Program (Action T4)
The "euthanasia campaign" of mass murder gathered momentum on 14 January 1940 when the "handicapped" were killed with gas vans and killing centres, eventually leading to the deaths of 70,000 adult Germans.[45] Professor Robert Jay Lifton, author of The Nazi Doctors and a leading authority on the T4 program, contrasts this program with what he considers to be a genuine euthanasia. He explains that the Nazi version of "euthanasia" was based on the work of Adolf Jost, who published The Right to Death (Das Recht auf den Tod) in 1895. Lifton writes: "Jost argued that control over the death of the individual must ultimately belong to the social organism, the state. This concept is in direct opposition to the Anglo-American concept of euthanasia, which emphasizes the individual's 'right to die' or 'right to death' or 'right to his or her own death,' as the ultimate human claim. In contrast, Jost was pointing to the state's right to kill. [...] Ultimately the argument was biological: 'The rights to death [are] the key to the fitness of life.' The state must own death—must kill—in order to keep the social organism alive and healthy."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanise#Nazi_Euthanasia_Program_.28Action_T4.29
Singer’s response came to Dublin reader Karen Meade’s question: “Would you kill a disabled baby?”
“Yes, if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole. Many people find this shocking, yet they support a woman’s right to have an abortion,” he said.
http://www.wnd.com/2006/09/37903/
http://supervegan.com/blog/entry.php?id=436
http://www.lifenews.com/2006/09/12/bio-1766/
-
So?
"So" as you will notice there is no comparison between these two men except in the confused and perhaps somewhat ignorant minds of folks such as you.
-
"So" as you will notice there is no comparison between these two men except in the confused and perhaps somewhat ignorant minds of folks such as you.
I was referring to Nazis in general. Please read above.
-
Ok. Yes, it's an opinion. But it's one most grown folks agree with. In fact, I can't recall ever talking to an older adult who disagreed with the following: if I knew then what I know . . . . Or: we really don't know squat at age 21.
I'm not talking about whether someone is legally considered an adult. That has no bearing on maturity, development, experience, wisdom, etc.
Of course I am biased in this case, but my grandchildren never cease to amaze me with how much they know....so much more than I knew at their ages. Okay, I'll give you credit for the fact that many, if not most, young folks lack some maturity and the features that some of us gain with it. I have also met people older than myself who are still struggling with maturity and wisdom.
Experience can be a wonderful teacher when folks pay attention to the lessons experience provides. Unfortunately this does not always happen. Some folks never mature, instead remaining stuck in a rut all of their lives. It is sad, but all too often true. Most of us have moments of immaturity. I know I still do at the advanced age of 67 years.
-
Of course I am biased in this case, but my grandchildren never cease to amaze me with how much they know....so much more than I knew at their ages. Okay, I'll give you credit for the fact that many, if not most, young folks lack some maturity and the features that some of us gain with it. I have also met people older than myself who are still struggling with maturity and wisdom.
Experience can be a wonderful teacher when folks pay attention to the lessons experience provides. Unfortunately this does not always happen. Some folks never mature, instead remaining stuck in a rut all of their lives. It is sad, but all too often true. Most of us have moments of immaturity. I know I still do at the advanced age of 67 years.
I agree. I wasn't intending to speak in absolute terms. Just a general proposition.
And don't get me wrong: kids are incredibly smart. From a very young age. But as you said, experience can be a wonderful teacher. That's what young folks don't have. There is no substitute.
-
I was referring to Nazis in general. Please read above.
So are you speaking of the Nazi movement today or the folks who fought in WWII? Many Nazi soldiers were just following orders, much as our military does today.
Understand, I have no argument with your not agreeing with Peter Singer's opinions or teaching. That is your right. He is a controversial person. No doubt there are a number of people who take exception to what he says. But to compare him or his followers to Nazis is really taking a leap. The quotes you provided are taken out of context and obviously intended by the original publishers to incite a negative reaction from the reader. It's all good though, because it gets folks thinking and talking about these subjects. They are touchy topics and yet ones that should not go ignored.
I live in Oregon. Oregon has a "right to die" law which allows for death with dignity. This too is a controversial topic. I happen to agree that we should have the right to have death with dignity.
-
So are you speaking of the Nazi movement today or the folks who fought in WWII? Many Nazi soldiers were just following orders, much as our military does today.
Understand, I have no argument with your not agreeing with Peter Singer's opinions or teaching. That is your right. He is a controversial person. No doubt there are a number of people who take exception to what he says. But to compare him or his followers to Nazis is really taking a leap. The quotes you provided are taken out of context and obviously intended by the original publishers to incite a negative reaction from the reader. It's all good though, because it gets folks thinking and talking about these subjects. They are touchy topics and yet ones that should not go ignored.
I live in Oregon. Oregon has a "right to die" law which allows for death with dignity. This too is a controversial topic. I happen to agree that we should have the right to have death with dignity.
I think you know who I am comparing Peter Singer to. I am comparing Peter Singer to all the Nazis responsible for the death of thousands of disabled people in the 1940s, simply because they were disabled.
When asked if he would kill a disabled infant, Peter Singer answered Yes. That is not taken out of context. Who cares about the context, his philosophy, his intentions, or his motivation? The professor said that he would kill a disabled infant, simply because the infant is disabled.
I personally don't believe that Peter Singer is a fool or a bad person. But his ideas are very bad and very dangerous, especially for a man in his position. As someone said "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
-
I think you know who I am comparing Peter Singer to. I am comparing Peter Singer to all the Nazis responsible for the death of thousands of disabled people in the 1940s, simply because they were disabled.
When asked if he would kill a disabled infant, Peter Singer answered Yes. That is not taken out of context. Who cares about the context, his philosophy, his intentions, or his motivation? The professor said that he would kill a disabled infant, simply because the infant is disabled.
I personally don't believe that Peter Singer is a fool or a bad person. But his ideas are very bad and very dangerous, especially for a man in his position. As someone said "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
Completely agree. Except for the part about him being a fool. :D
-
When asked if he would kill a disabled infant, Peter Singer answered Yes. That is not taken out of context. Who cares about the context, his philosophy, his intentions, or his motivation? The professor said that he would kill a disabled infant, simply because the infant is disabled.
Excerpt of an interview with Peter Singer:
The Sanctity of Human Life
Q. You have been quoted as saying: "Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all." Is that quote accurate?
A. It is accurate, but can be misleading if read without an understanding of what I mean by the term “person” (which is discussed in Practical Ethics, from which that quotation is taken). I use the term "person" to refer to a being who is capable of anticipating the future, of having wants and desires for the future. As I have said in answer to the previous question, I think that it is generally a greater wrong to kill such a being than it is to kill a being that has no sense of existing over time. Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living. That doesn’t mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do. It is, but that is because most infants are loved and cherished by their parents, and to kill an infant is usually to do a great wrong to its parents.
Sometimes, perhaps because the baby has a serious disability, parents think it better that their newborn infant should die. Many doctors will accept their wishes, to the extent of not giving the baby life-supporting medical treatment. That will often ensure that the baby dies. My view is different from this, only to the extent that if a decision is taken, by the parents and doctors, that it is better that a baby should die, I believe it should be possible to carry out that decision, not only by withholding or withdrawing life-support – which can lead to the baby dying slowly from dehydration or from an infection - but also by taking active steps to end the baby’s life swiftly and humanely.
Q. What about a normal baby? Doesn’t your theory of personhood imply that parents can kill a healthy, normal baby that they do not want, because it has no sense of the future?
A. Most parents, fortunately, love their children and would be horrified by the idea of killing it. And that’s a good thing, of course. We want to encourage parents to care for their children, and help them to do so. Moreover, although a normal newborn baby has no sense of the future, and therefore is not a person, that does not mean that it is all right to kill such a baby. It only means that the wrong done to the infant is not as great as the wrong that would be done to a person who was killed. But in our society there are many couples who would be very happy to love and care for that child. Hence even if the parents do not want their own child, it would be wrong to kill it.
-
I think you know who I am comparing Peter Singer to. I am comparing Peter Singer to all the Nazis responsible for the death of thousands of disabled people in the 1940s, simply because they were disabled.
When asked if he would kill a disabled infant, Peter Singer answered Yes. That is not taken out of context. Who cares about the context, his philosophy, his intentions, or his motivation? The professor said that he would kill a disabled infant, simply because the infant is disabled.
I personally don't believe that Peter Singer is a fool or a bad person. But his ideas are very bad and very dangerous, especially for a man in his position. As someone said "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
I'm aware of Singer's work, his utilitarian foundation, what he takes from Bentham, Sidgwick, etc etc. Could you provide the non-existant quote where he says what I have bold above. You are misinterpreting him to make his arguments seem much more weak than they really are.
-
I'm aware of Singer's work, his utilitarian foundation, what he takes from Bentham, Sidgwick, etc etc. Could you provide the non-existant quote where he says what I have bold above. You are misinterpreting him to make his arguments seem much more weak than they really are.
I have already done that. Anything else I can get you, Mr. Magoo?
-
Excerpt of an interview with Peter Singer:
The Sanctity of Human Life
Q. You have been quoted as saying: "Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all." Is that quote accurate?
A. It is accurate, but can be misleading if read without an understanding of what I mean by the term “person” (which is discussed in Practical Ethics, from which that quotation is taken). I use the term "person" to refer to a being who is capable of anticipating the future, of having wants and desires for the future. As I have said in answer to the previous question, I think that it is generally a greater wrong to kill such a being than it is to kill a being that has no sense of existing over time. Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living. That doesn’t mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do. It is, but that is because most infants are loved and cherished by their parents, and to kill an infant is usually to do a great wrong to its parents.
Sometimes, perhaps because the baby has a serious disability, parents think it better that their newborn infant should die. Many doctors will accept their wishes, to the extent of not giving the baby life-supporting medical treatment. That will often ensure that the baby dies. My view is different from this, only to the extent that if a decision is taken, by the parents and doctors, that it is better that a baby should die, I believe it should be possible to carry out that decision, not only by withholding or withdrawing life-support – which can lead to the baby dying slowly from dehydration or from an infection - but also by taking active steps to end the baby’s life swiftly and humanely.
Q. What about a normal baby? Doesn’t your theory of personhood imply that parents can kill a healthy, normal baby that they do not want, because it has no sense of the future?
A. Most parents, fortunately, love their children and would be horrified by the idea of killing it. And that’s a good thing, of course. We want to encourage parents to care for their children, and help them to do so. Moreover, although a normal newborn baby has no sense of the future, and therefore is not a person, that does not mean that it is all right to kill such a baby. It only means that the wrong done to the infant is not as great as the wrong that would be done to a person who was killed. But in our society there are many couples who would be very happy to love and care for that child. Hence even if the parents do not want their own child, it would be wrong to kill it.
This does not sound any better. Either way, when asked if he would kill a disabled infant, Peter Singer answered "Yes."
-
This does not sound any better. Either way, when asked if he would kill a disabled infant, Peter Singer answered "Yes."
lmao. You are switching back and forth between saying "peter singer says (under certain circumstances) the killing of disabled infants is morally permissible" and then saying peter singer says killing disabled infants is morally permissible "simply because they are disabled".
The first is true, the second is false.
-
lmao. You are switching back and forth between saying "peter singer says (under certain circumstances) the killing of disabled infants is morally permissible" and then saying peter singer says killing disabled infants is morally permissible "simply because they are disabled".
The first is true, the second is false.
Thank goodness there is someone reading these post who is willing to be objective about Peter Singer. Personally, I don't know or follow Peter Singer. However, I find it concerning when folks jump to conclusions and only skim the service when it comes to these matters. Jumping to conclusions is one of the things that gets all of us into trouble.
-
This does not sound any better. Either way, when asked if he would kill a disabled infant, Peter Singer answered "Yes."
How unfortunate....you've made up your mind and thus it is closed to reasonable conversation. Well, don't feel too bad; you are among a herd of sheep who have the same problem.
-
lmao. You are switching back and forth between saying "peter singer says (under certain circumstances) the killing of disabled infants is morally permissible" and then saying peter singer says killing disabled infants is morally permissible "simply because they are disabled".
The first is true, the second is false.
If my child was going to come into this world so fucked up, that he would spend his life as a vegetable, youre damn right id abort him.
What kind of life is a life where you cannot function on your own? Id rather be dead than be a vegetable my whole life.
-
If my child was going to come into this world so fucked up, that he would spend his life as a vegetable, youre damn right id abort him.
What kind of life is a life where you cannot function on your own? Id rather be dead than be a vegetable my whole life.
And Shockwave, you are a rational and independent thinker. Kudos to you. I believe you get what Peter Singer is saying howeve unpopular that may be.
-
If my child was going to come into this world so fucked up, that he would spend his life as a vegetable, youre damn right id abort him.
Peter Singer is not talking about abortion. He is clearly talking about killing born infants. Clearly I am not the one who isn't reading and who isn't paying attention here.
-
lmao. You are switching back and forth between saying "peter singer says (under certain circumstances) the killing of disabled infants is morally permissible" and then saying peter singer says killing disabled infants is morally permissible "simply because they are disabled".
The first is true, the second is false.
I am not sure what you are saying here. How am I switching back and forth? Peter singer says he would kill a disabled infant and he says that is morally permissible. You are agreeing with me above. Why would he kill a disabled infant? Simply because he/she("it" as Peter Singer says) is disabled. The infant's disability is what gets him/her labeled by Singer as "Not a person" and it is what gets him/her killed by Singer. Not the case with an infant who is Not disabled.
-
I am not sure what you are saying here. How am I switching back and forth? Peter singer says he would kill a disabled infant and he says that is morally permissible. You are agreeing with me above. Why would he kill a disabled infant? Simply because he/she("it" as Peter Singer says) is disabled. The infant's disability is what gets him/her labeled by Singer as "Not a person" and it is what gets him/her killed by Singer. Not the case with an infant who is Not disabled.
It's not the infant's disability that causes Singer to not label the infant a person. The exact criteria were posted on the last couple of pages, repeatedly, which makes me suspect you are either stupid or just dishonest.
Which leads me to my next point: are you stupid or just dishonest?
-
It's not the infant's disability that causes Singer to not label the infant a person. The exact criteria were posted on the last couple of pages, repeatedly, which makes me suspect you are either stupid or just dishonest.
Which leads me to my next point: are you stupid or just dishonest?
Why are you still here? Are you stupid or dishonest?
And to close out my participation in this discussion
So, which are you?
-
Why are you still here? Are you stupid or dishonest?
Because, as much as I want to stay out, I can't just sit idly by while you blatantly distort the truth as you do.
So, which are you?
You first.
-
Because, as much as I want to stay out, I can't just sit idly by while you blatantly distort the truth as you do.
You first.
I am neither, and I am not distorting the truth.
You next.
-
I am neither, and I am not distorting the truth.
You next.
You blatantly distorted Singer's position - deny it to yourself if you must, but it's pretty damn obvious. Which leads me to my next question: are you stupid or just dishonest?
-
You blatantly distorted Singer's position - deny it to yourself if you must, but it's pretty damn obvious. Which leads me to my next question: are you stupid or just dishonest?
No, I did not. Neither.
You must think these people are either stupid or dishonest as well:
American economist Steve Forbes ceased his donations to Princeton University in 1999 because of Singer's appointment to an honorable position.
http://www.euthanasia.com/forb.html
Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal wrote to organizers of a Swedish book fair to which Singer was invited that "A professor of morals ... who justifies the right to kill handicapped newborns ... is in my opinion unacceptable for representation at your level."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/feder102898.asp
Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, the leading organization for blind people in the United States, strongly criticized Singer's appointment to the Princeton Faculty in a banquet speech at the organization's national convention in July 2001, claiming that Singer's support for euthanizing disabled babies could lead to disabled older children and adults being valued less as well.
http://www.nfb.org/Images/nfb/Publications/convent/banque01.htm
-
No, I did not. Neither.
You must think these people are either stupid or dishonest as well:
American economist Steve Forbes ceased his donations to Princeton University in 1999 because of Singer's appointment to an honorable position.
http://www.euthanasia.com/forb.html
Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal wrote to organizers of a Swedish book fair to which Singer was invited that "A professor of morals ... who justifies the right to kill handicapped newborns ... is in my opinion unacceptable for representation at your level."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/feder102898.asp
Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, the leading organization for blind people in the United States, strongly criticized Singer's appointment to the Princeton Faculty in a banquet speech at the organization's national convention in July 2001, claiming that Singer's support for euthanizing disabled babies could lead to disabled older children and adults being valued less as well.
http://www.nfb.org/Images/nfb/Publications/convent/banque01.htm
In each of these links, there is an excerpt taken out of context and a lot of personal opinion about Peter Singer. I posted an interview with Peter Singer where he addresses the topic of disabled infants and infants in general with reference to his book containing this topic. Did you not read the interview at all?
No matter how hard you try to simplify and misrepresent Peter Singer, you fail. You cannot simply point to a link that contains an out of context quote and use that as proof of your point. BTW taken out of context generally means without all of the details. To take something out of context is to ignore the overall meaning of an utterance in order to assign undue importance or meaning to a part of it. For example: Joe says "I think Fred is not a man to trifle with." The CNN network anchorman gleefully reports it as "Joe says Fred is not a man." That is taking Joe's words out of context. In this case Peter Singers view are have more depth than you are allowing for.
Taken out of context is a form of a lie. Therefore to do so is being dishonest. If you didn't realize with all the provided information, that you were continuing to be dishonest then you are lacking in intelligence.
-
.
-
In each of these links, there is an excerpt taken out of context and a lot of personal opinion about Peter Singer. I posted an interview with Peter Singer where he addresses the topic of disabled infants and infants in general with reference to his book containing this topic. Did you not read the interview at all?
No matter how hard you try to simplify and misrepresent Peter Singer, you fail. You cannot simply point to a link that contains an out of context quote and use that as proof of your point. BTW taken out of context generally means without all of the details. To take something out of context is to ignore the overall meaning of an utterance in order to assign undue importance or meaning to a part of it. For example: Joe says "I think Fred is not a man to trifle with." The CNN network anchorman gleefully reports it as "Joe says Fred is not a man." That is taking Joe's words out of context. In this case Peter Singers view are have more depth than you are allowing for.
Taken out of context is a form of a lie. Therefore to do so is being dishonest. If you didn't realize with all the provided information, that you were continuing to be dishonest then you are lacking in intelligence.
This. But Primemuscle, I wouldn't put too much effort in your responses to Loco. He has a tendency of ignoring what he doesn't agree with and reposting saved links and stuff with bold words, usually out of context, to back up his original position. He'll do it over and over then resort to name-calling or a red herring to distract from the argument. Either he's too dishonest to engage productively in an argument or he's too dumb. I bet his reply to this will only be something against me personally, and not refuting anything I've said.
-
Unlike many of the people who post on this site, loco backs up what he says. You may not agree with what he says, or his interpretation, but he doesn't just make stuff up.
And he's absolutely right about Singer.
-
.
And many people think homosexuality is sin. Get over it!!
-
In each of these links, there is an excerpt taken out of context and a lot of personal opinion about Peter Singer. I posted an interview with Peter Singer where he addresses the topic of disabled infants and infants in general with reference to his book containing this topic. Did you not read the interview at all?
No matter how hard you try to simplify and misrepresent Peter Singer, you fail. You cannot simply point to a link that contains an out of context quote and use that as proof of your point. BTW taken out of context generally means without all of the details. To take something out of context is to ignore the overall meaning of an utterance in order to assign undue importance or meaning to a part of it. For example: Joe says "I think Fred is not a man to trifle with." The CNN network anchorman gleefully reports it as "Joe says Fred is not a man." That is taking Joe's words out of context. In this case Peter Singers view are have more depth than you are allowing for.
Taken out of context is a form of a lie. Therefore to do so is being dishonest. If you didn't realize with all the provided information, that you were continuing to be dishonest then you are lacking in intelligence.
Primemuscle, I know what taken out of context means. I did not take anything out of context. I simply posted what I read with links to the source.
You keep saying that you are not a follower of Peter Singer and that you do not agree with him. Will you please tell me what exactly it is about Peter Singer's views and ideas that you do not agree with, and why?
Thank you!
-
This. But Primemuscle, I wouldn't put too much effort in your responses to Loco. He has a tendency of ignoring what he doesn't agree with and reposting saved links and stuff with bold words, usually out of context, to back up his original position. He'll do it over and over then resort to name-calling or a red herring to distract from the argument. Either he's too dishonest to engage productively in an argument or he's too dumb. I bet his reply to this will only be something against me personally, and not refuting anything I've said.
Mr. Magoo, when have I resorted to name calling? When have I called you names?
In the same post above, you first accuse me of resorting to name calling, then you call me dumb. ::)
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=426118.0;attach=471992;image)
And many people think homosexuality is sin. Get over it!!
LOL ;D
-
Unlike many of the people who post on this site, loco backs up what he says. You may not agree with what he says, or his interpretation, but he doesn't just make stuff up.
And he's absolutely right about Singer.
Thank you, Beach Bum! ;D
-
You must think these people are either stupid or dishonest as well:
American economist Steve Forbes ceased his donations to Princeton University in 1999 because of Singer's appointment to an honorable position.
http://www.euthanasia.com/forb.html
I think that Steve Forbes can choose to donate or not donate based on whatever criteria he has. He could stop donating because they don't have a Department of Stripping Science, for all I care.
Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal wrote to organizers of a Swedish book fair to which Singer was invited that "A professor of morals ... who justifies the right to kill handicapped newborns ... is in my opinion unacceptable for representation at your level."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/feder102898.asp
Simon Wiesenthal is entitled to his opinion. But if this quote is accurate and not taken out of context (the ellipsis indicate that bits were cut out in at least two places) then he is, at the very least, misrepresenting Singer's position.
Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, the leading organization for blind people in the United States, strongly criticized Singer's appointment to the Princeton Faculty in a banquet speech at the organization's national convention in July 2001, claiming that Singer's support for euthanizing disabled babies could lead to disabled older children and adults being valued less as well.
http://www.nfb.org/Images/nfb/Publications/convent/banque01.htm
If his claim is that Singer supports euthanazing disabled babies, he's wrong. If he claims that this could lead to older children and adults being valued less, then he doesn't understand Singer's philosophy at all.
Unlike many of the people who post on this site, loco backs up what he says.
Unlike many people who post on this site, he seems to not say very much - instead he copy-pastes stuff, and then claims that he "simply posted what [he] read with links to the source."
And he's absolutely right about Singer.
For some definition of right anyways...
Anyways, we seem to be going in circles. We have loco copy-pasting the same text, we have you repeating that Singer is wrong, we have Primemuscle and me telling you both you're misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting Singer's position.
On top of that, it's now blatantly obvious to me that neither you nor loco care about what Singer actually says. You just care about what you think he says. I don't quite understand why anyone would willingly avoid knowledge and reality, but I'm sure that you have your "reasons."
Now I'm really done with this thread.
-
And many people think homosexuality is sin. Get over it!!
Slaveowners thought black people were subhuman.
I'm glad abolitionists didn't get over it.
-
I think that Steve Forbes can choose to donate or not donate based on whatever criteria he has. He could stop donating because they don't have a Department of Stripping Science, for all I care.
Simon Wiesenthal is entitled to his opinion. But if this quote is accurate and not taken out of context (the ellipsis indicate that bits were cut out in at least two places) then he is, at the very least, misrepresenting Singer's position.
If his claim is that Singer supports euthanazing disabled babies, he's wrong. If he claims that this could lead to older children and adults being valued less, then he doesn't understand Singer's philosophy at all.
Unlike many people who post on this site, he seems to not say very much - instead he copy-pastes stuff, and then claims that he "simply posted what [he] read with links to the source."
For some definition of right anyways...
Anyways, we seem to be going in circles. We have loco copy-pasting the same text, we have you repeating that Singer is wrong, we have Primemuscle and me telling you both you're misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting Singer's position.
On top of that, it's now blatantly obvious to me that neither you nor loco care about what Singer actually says. You just care about what you think he says. I don't quite understand why anyone would willingly avoid knowledge and reality, but I'm sure that you have your "reasons."
Now I'm really done with this thread.
Interesting! You claim that because of my opinion about Peter Singer's views and ideas I am "either stupid or dishonest." But when I show you other well known people who share my opinion about Peter Singer's views and ideas, suddenly they are neither stupid nor dishonest. ::)
You are really done with this thread? You know what that means? Absolutely nothing. You said that before, but came back for more. Why do you even bother saying that? Your words mean nothing, I see.
-
Homosexuals and heterosexuals are welcome in my church. We're all broken sinners and have a fallen short and are in need of the Lord's grace. I've lied, cheated, stolen, lusted, experienced fits of unjustified anger, watched pornography, taken the Lord's name in vain, disrespected my parents, etc.....in life. I may not have the sin of homosexuality in my list of sins, but that doesn't mean I'm any better than someone that does. Everyone can fall into the grace of God!
-
Homosexuals and heterosexuals are welcome in my church. We're all broken sinners and have a fallen short and are in need of the Lord's grace. I've lied, cheated, stolen, lusted, experienced fits of unjustified anger, watched pornography, taken the Lord's name in vain, disrespected my parents, etc.....in life. I may not have the sin of homosexuality in my list of sins, but that doesn't mean I'm any better than someone that does. Everyone can fall into the grace of God!
Wurd. :)
-
Homosexuals and heterosexuals are welcome in my church. We're all broken sinners and have a fallen short and are in need of the Lord's grace. I've lied, cheated, stolen, lusted, experienced fits of unjustified anger, watched pornography, taken the Lord's name in vain, disrespected my parents, etc.....in life. I may not have the sin of homosexuality in my list of sins, but that doesn't mean I'm any better than someone that does. Everyone can fall into the grace of God!
Same here. ;D
-
Homosexuals and heterosexuals are welcome in my church. We're all broken sinners and have a fallen short and are in need of the Lord's grace. I've lied, cheated, stolen, lusted, experienced fits of unjustified anger, watched pornography, taken the Lord's name in vain, disrespected my parents, etc.....in life. I may not have the sin of homosexuality in my list of sins, but that doesn't mean I'm any better than someone that does. Everyone can fall into the grace of God!
The hypocritical self-righteous zealots could learn a lesson (or two) from your (perceived) humbleness. But as it appears, they can't.
-
Primemuscle, I know what taken out of context means. I did not take anything out of context. I simply posted what I read with links to the source.
You keep saying that you are not a follower of Peter Singer and that you do not agree with him. Will you please tell me what exactly it is about Peter Singer's views and ideas that you do not agree with, and why?
Thank you!
Perhaps I misstated. You may not have taken Peter Singer's remarks out of context, but the folks to whom you linked did. They did this because they simply took what they wanted from what he wrote. They provided an incomplete and inaccurate picture of Peter Singer.
Maybe it would help if I gave you an example.
I have stated that I am bisexual (this is documented on Getbig). I have also stated that I have been married for 47 years and I am not sexually active with anyone beyond my wife, whom I love completely. If you were to quote me as saying I was bisexual but then neglect to post anything about my relationship and commitment to my wife, you'd be giving folks an inaccurate view of who I was and what our relationship meant to me. Sorry, this is a bit simplistic, but it is what comes to mind at the moment. Obviously, my relationship with my wife is much more complicated than I wish to go into here.
Likewise in his interview, Peter Singer explains in more detail what his views are. By ignoring this, you are inadvertently presenting an inaccurate view of Peter Singer's philosophy and beliefs. Further by ignoring his explanation and simply reporting what serves other folks purpose, his comments become out of context.
The bottom line is he said what he was quoted as saying so to cite that is not a completely dishonest. But, he said much more than that and so the impact and meaning of what he said and wrote is being (presented) taken out of context.
I don't recall saying that I did not agree with Peter Singer. Fortunately, I two very healthy children. Both are mature adults these days. Therefore I never had to put his philosophy to the test, as it were. However, my wife and I have discussed whether we would have brought a seriously handicapped child into this world. Our feeling is that we would not have done so. So, this sort of indicates we probably agree with Peter Singer. Let me just close with this, my wife and I thank God that we never had this decision to make.
Let me also say that Peter Singer's views are controversial and they are a hard pill to swallow. I completely understand why some folks would be so put off by his teaching that they would have a lot of difficulty looking deeper into what he says.
The bottom line is that each of us would have to be in the situation to which he refers to honestly know what we would do. Again, I thank God that I never was.
-
Exodus chapter 12 verse 43:
The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "These are the regulations for the Passover: No foreigner is to eat of it. Any slave you have bought may eat of it after you have circumcised him, but a temporary resident and a hired worker may not eat of it."
Why are we ignoring the Bible on circumsising our slaves?
It's a slippery slope, people.
-
Perhaps I misstated. You may not have taken Peter Singer's remarks out of context, but the folks to whom you linked did. They did this because they simply took what they wanted from what he wrote. They provided an incomplete and inaccurate picture of Peter Singer.
Maybe it would help if I gave you an example.
I have stated that I am bisexual (this is documented on Getbig). I have also stated that I have been married for 47 years and I am not sexually active with anyone beyond my wife, whom I love completely. If you were to quote me as saying I was bisexual but then neglect to post anything about my relationship and commitment to my wife, you'd be giving folks an inaccurate view of who I was and what our relationship meant to me. Sorry, this is a bit simplistic, but it is what comes to mind at the moment. Obviously, my relationship with my wife is much more complicated than I wish to go into here.
Likewise in his interview, Peter Singer explains in more detail what his views are. By ignoring this, you are inadvertently presenting an inaccurate view of Peter Singer's philosophy and beliefs. Further by ignoring his explanation and simply reporting what serves other folks purpose, his comments become out of context.
The bottom line is he said what he was quoted as saying so to cite that is not a completely dishonest. But, he said much more than that and so the impact and meaning of what he said and wrote is being (presented) taken out of context.
I don't recall saying that I did not agree with Peter Singer. Fortunately, I two very healthy children. Both are mature adults these days. Therefore I never had to put his philosophy to the test, as it were. However, my wife and I have discussed whether we would have brought a seriously handicapped child into this world. Our feeling is that we would not have done so. So, this sort of indicates we probably agree with Peter Singer. Let me just close with this, my wife and I thank God that we never had this decision to make.
Let me also say that Peter Singer's views are controversial and they are a hard pill to swallow. I completely understand why some folks would be so put off by his teaching that they would have a lot of difficulty looking deeper into what he says.
The bottom line is that each of us would have to be in the situation to which he refers to honestly know what we would do. Again, I thank God that I never was.
The quotes attributed to professer Singer are clearly disturbing when taken out of context as you've done here. Did you read the links you posted? While I may not agree with what he says, he makes some interesting points no matter how horrific they may seem to some people.
Primemuscle,
Will you please tell me what exactly it is about Peter Singer's views and ideas that you do not agree with, and why?
Thank you!
-
The hypocritical self-righteous zealots could learn a lesson (or two) from your (perceived) humbleness. But as it appears, they can't.
I've never understood why people that call themselves Christian that are supposed to profess the love of Christ congregate in groups while carrying signs and posters screaming at homosexuals in areas that homosexuals normally socialize telling them to repent or burn!! I don't understand that at all. If you want to interact with homosexuals why not assemble outreach for that community and invite them into your churches, share a meal with them, get to know them, etc.....We're all broken sinners - every one of us! Why not help others see Christ through your witness? Christ engaged all types of people and changed their hearts and forgave them. Now, there are churches that already do exactly what I've outlined here, but I don't understand the aggresive groups that I mentioned. Why don't they come to my house and picket me with signs and call me "LIAR!" or "ADULTERER!"?? If all they're doing is pointing out other folks' sins then why not do point out other sins? Just seems like a completely ineffective approach if providing a witness for Christ is the intent...he didn't command that of us his body of believers.
-
Primemuscle,
Will you please tell me what exactly it is about Peter Singer's views and ideas that you do not agree with, and why?
Thank you!
Obviously, you take everything that one says quite literally. You bolded a part of a post where I wrote that "I may not agree with what he says, " and another where I wrote, " I don't recall saying that I did not agree with Peter Singer." To my way of thinking, writing or saying "may not" is not the same thing as writing or saying do not or "did not." One is an absolute while the other is not.
Here's the thing, I neither agree nor disagree with Peter Singer's views based on what little I know of them and him. Furthermore, unless I was faced with one of the difficult situations he mentions, I have no idea what I would do. Since I am past the point of fathering children and since I cannot get pregnant, not being female, it is most unlikely that I ever would be in a position to decide if an infant should be kept alive or not. It is not my place or desire to make decisions for other people.
-
.