Pope: Saving world from homosexuality like saving rainforests

[bsd13]

I am yet to see any evidence that morality is anything but relative.

So rape is moral if it's ok with the rapist? Or maybe it's moral if it is ok with the rapist's mother? Could it be moral if it is ok with the rapists 3rd cousin?

How about murder? Is murder moral if the one committing the act believes it to be?

What about beating kittens to death? If I don't like cats and I go around my neighborhood smashing their skulls with a rock is that ok?

Remember it's all relative.

 

[bsd13]

Nonsense. We have governments and laws to draw the line. You don't need ancient laws and ancient books to legislate morality when you have modern laws that do it better and more concisely.

Where do you think these governments got their laws from? You think it was do-gooder humans? In this very discussion we have someone telling us that morality is relative. If that were the case how would you expect a government to come up with any laws?

 

[Nathan45]

my two cents on morality...

I am yet to see any evidence that morality is anything but relative.

Morality is closely related to people's goals and objectives. Specifically, other people's goals and objectives. For example, a primary objective of most people is not to die, so killing them is immoral. And if anyone's objectives conflict with eachother or society in general, they need to be reconciled in a way that's most practical. The point of the whole thing is social cohesion.

It's relative insofar as:

people have different goals and objectives.
people have different ideas about reaching those goals and objectives.

A lot of it is relative but I don't think that it could be said to be entirely relative.

I think that rape is actually a very good example of something that's not relative...

For rape to be moral the victim would have to agree to be raped. However, if that were the case, it wouldn't be rape, it would be consensual. Therefore, rape is immoral, practically by definition. ( granted, a definition which i pretty much just made up... )

...

I think we also need to make a distinction between morality and law...

bsd13 makes a good point that someone needs to draw the line somewhere on what is moral and what is not, that's what laws are for, to draw the line to determine objectively what is allowed and what isn't, and also what the punishment is for disallowed actions.

morality is very abstract and difficult to determine, wheras laws have to be something that is simple and can be enforced and practically implemented.

The point of a good law is to represent morality as closely as possible while being as easy to understand as possible and as enforceable as possible.

 

[bsd13]

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh that's precious. But it still doesn't answer why I need to accept convoluted notions of perversion.

I live in America. America is a democratic republic. Ergo, who cares what you consider your God's law. I don't have to, nor does anyone else in any official capacity what so ever. The faster this reality sinks in on you the better for everyone. If you want a theocracy I suggest perhaps Iran, or find a desert island you can buy on the cheap and start a the nation of King of Kingsvania.

The beauty of it is that it is entirely within your right to have that opinion. You'll one day die and have to answer for it, but you still have the right to it.

I don't trust as a rule, where Christians draw their lines of morality for everyone else. And I'm highly suspect of the claim that you are speaking for God on where that deity draws it's lines. Gods I find tend to draw lines of morality and law to benefit the people saying they are speaking for their deity. Funny how that work.

God (singular, there is only one) draws the lines of morality. At least the only lines that matter.

 

[Nathan45]

Where do you think these governments got their laws from? You think it was do-gooder humans?

Yes.

In this very discussion we have someone telling us that morality is relative. If that were the case how would you expect a government to come up with any laws?

By writing them down. Anyways, I don't agree that all morality is relative, just some of it. See my post above.

 

[Nihilismus]

So rape is moral if it's ok with the rapist? Or maybe it's moral if it is ok with the rapist's mother? Could it be moral if it is ok with the rapists 3rd cousin?

How about murder? Is murder moral if the one committing the act believes it to be?

What about beating kittens to death? If I don't like cats and I go around my neighborhood smashing their skulls with a rock is that ok?

Remember it's all relative.

Precisely. Murderers and rapists do not consider their actions to be immoral. For them, there is nothing wrong with it. No morals are universal. They are completely relative to the individual.

 

[Nathan45]

Precisely. Murderers and rapists do not consider their actions to be immoral. For them, there is nothing wrong with it. No morals are universal. They are completely relative to the individual.

I'd argue that morality exists whether or not the Murderers or Rapists acknowledge that it does.

Morality is based on social cohesion and social evolution.

Would you agree that what the rapist or the murderer is doing is against "social cohesion" (to put it mildly)? From my point of view that wouldn't be any different than saying it is immoral.

 

[bsd13]

Precisely. Murderers and rapists do not consider their actions to be immoral. For them, there is nothing wrong with it. No morals are universal. They are completely relative to the individual.

You don't take yourself seriously do you?

 

[Nihilismus]

I'd argue that morality exists whether or not the Murderers or Rapists acknowledge that it does.

Morality is based on social cohesion and social evolution.

Would you agree that what the rapist or the murderer is doing is against "social cohesion" (to put it mildly)? From my point of view that wouldn't be any different than saying it is immoral.

No. "Social cohesion" can be used to justify anything (which only proves my point about moral relativity). There is absolutely nothing objective about it. Right and wrong only exist by virtue of the individual designating meaning; they are as subjective as beauty or offensiveness.

If you adhere to some form of "code" it is only because you are personally inclined to do so.

You don't take yourself seriously do you?

Is that your rebuttal? I'm disappointed.

Where's your "King of Kings" now?

 

[bsd13]

I'd argue that morality exists whether or not the Murderers or Rapists acknowledge that it does.

Morality is based on social cohesion and social evolution.

Would you agree that what the rapist or the murderer is doing is against "social cohesion" (to put it mildly)? From my point of view that wouldn't be any different than saying it is immoral.

Where does this "morality" come from? If society has "evolved" why are our morals pretty much the same as they were three thousand years ago? The only thing that has really changed is the punishment for breaking them.

Like you pointed out regardless of if you call it social cohesion or morality it is the same. The old if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

 

[Nathan45]

Romans 14:14 doesn't give one open license to commit sin. In fact taken in context it warns against doing that very thing.

Romans 14:14-15 - "14 As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.

15 If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died."

The entire meaning of 14:14 changes when taken in context with the next verse.

I don't think the meaning changes so much, as the additional assertion that one should be deferential to the opinions of others.

The basic argument is that you shouldn't do things that offend "your brothers", not that there is anything fundamentally wrong with eating meat.

And you're not in Christ (unless you're claim of being a deist is wrong) so why quote Biblical passages?

I find theology pretty interesting, actually.

 

[corvus_corax]

BTW, back to a couple pages ago, what's all this with the Bible being "The Word of God"?
I saw Christians stating this, and even non believers calling it such.

Where does that come from?
I mean, seriously, one can't even use circular logic (in this instance, using the Bible to "prove" the Bible) to demonstrate this.

Heck, according to the Bible, the Word was made human, not a series of papers.
The Word of God was not a collection of several stories and mails sent throughout various areas.

Gotta love bibliolatry, huh?
Calling the Bible the "Word of God" is actually heretical (seeing as how the Bible is not the Messiah), yet EVERY single Christian I personally know refers to it as such. As (apparently) do many Christians on these forums.
Heresy, really.
Go figure

 

[bsd13]

No. "Social cohesion" can be used to justify anything (which only proves my point about moral relativity). There is absolutely nothing objective about it. Right and wrong only exist by virtue of the individual designating meaning; they are as subjective as beauty or offensiveness.

If you adhere to some form of "code" it is only because you are personally inclined to do so.

How about if you are the victim? Is it their morals or yours that matters?

Is that your rebuttal? I'm disappointed.

Where's your "King of Kings" now?

I don't need to a rebuttal for unadulterated nonsense.

He's on the throne and in complete control. No need to worry about where Jesus Christ is now. Worry about when He steps down from His throne and comes to reclaim His earth.

 

[quatona]

The Pope said that "saving" humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour is just as important as saving the rainforests.

In comments at the Vatican that are likely to provoke a furious reaction from homosexual groups, Benedict also warned that blurring the distinction between male and female could lead to the "self-destruction" of the human race.

In his address to the Curia, the Vatican's central administration, he described behaviour beyond traditional heterosexual relations as "a destruction of God's work" and said that the Roman Catholic Church had a duty to "protect man from the destruction of himself".

It is not "outmoded metaphysics" to urge respect for the "nature of the human being as man and woman," he added.

"The tropical forests do deserve our protection. But man, as a creature, does not deserve any less."

The Catholic Church teaches that while homosexuality is not sinful, homosexual acts are. It opposes gay marriage and, in October, a leading Vatican official described homosexuality as "a deviation, an irregularity, a wound".

The Pope said humanity needed to "listen to the language of creation" to understand the intended roles of man and woman.

He also defended the Church's right to "speak of human nature as man and woman, and ask that this order of creation be respected".

source
​

And that coming from a guy who crossdresses and refuses to play the intended male part in and of creation.
(If everyone were a catholic priest it would lead to the self-destruction of the human race. Saving humanity from catholicism is as important as saving the rainforests. How lazy can thinking get? )

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Sex between a married man and woman isn't an issue for anyone. God has blessed that. Sex between unmarried persons, and/or sex between persons of the same gender is the issue. God has NOT blessed that.

What two consenting adults (or more) do is not anyone's business but the people involved and laws are secular in nature at least in this country.

 

[Nihilismus]

BTW, back to a couple pages ago, what's all this with the Bible being "The Word of God"?
I saw Christians stating this, and even non believers calling it such.

Where does that come from?
I mean, seriously, one can't even use circular logic (in this instance, using the Bible to "prove" the Bible) to demonstrate this.

Heck, according to the Bible, the Word was made human, not a series of papers.
The Word of God was not a collection of several stories and mails sent throughout various areas.

Gotta love bibliolatry, huh?
Calling the Bible the "Word of God" is actually heretical (seeing as how the Bible is not the Messiah), yet EVERY single Christian I personally know refers to it as such. As (apparently) do many Christians on these forums.
Heresy, really.
Go figure

I already tried this line. I am yet to receive a response for it.

How about if you are the victim? Is it their morals or yours that matters?

Obviously, the only morals that matter to an individual are his/her own.

I don't need to a rebuttal for unadulterated nonsense.

How is it nonsense?

 

[OphidiaPhile]

What would constitute proof, in your opinion, that something is the Word of God?

You would first have to prove that god exists and then that the words in the bible are ones he/she/it actually spoke.

 

[Nathan45]

Where does this "morality" come from?

evolutionary forces. Do you understand the concept of group evolution? Let me explain it.

IE, say you have 3 groups of 10 people, all living together isolated from the other groups.

in the first group, all 10 are murderers. Wicked murderers. Wretches, all of them. They arn't going to get along very well, because they don't look after their own kind.

the second group, are indifferent to eachother. They meet to mate, that's all. Otherwise they ignore eachother.

The third group, cooperates and helps eachother, and works together to achieve their goals.

Now, which group, from a natural selection standpoint, would be most successful? The third group, obviously. The first group will destroy itself, the second group is no better than if they were not a group, the third group works together and the sum is greater than the parts.

So, people organize themselves into tribes, groups, governments, ideologies, etc... and natural selection acts not just on the individual but also on the tribe or government or ideology.

( when you get to larger groups, it's mostly ideologies doing the evolving, actually. IE, an ideology or moral system that works better towards social cohesion will be selected for, because the individuals in the group like it better and would rather live under that ideology than some other. )

If society has "evolved" why are our morals pretty much the same as they were three thousand years ago?

I completely disagree that our morals are pretty much the same as they were three thousand years ago, but then again, I suppose I am talking to someone who quotes morality from leviticus.

Let me give you a list of changes in morality between Leviticus and now:

1) Nobody sacrifices bulls to God anymore.
2) Nobody cares if you shave your beard.
3) Women are not to be bought and sold, they have the same rights as a man. Women are people just like you.
4) Eating shellfish and pork is not considered immoral, because we know that pork and shellfish arn't dangerous to eat if you cook them properly.
5) It's OK to be Gay.

an incomplete list, of course.

Like you pointed out regardless of if you call it social cohesion or morality it is the same. The old if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

But people are going to have disagreements about what morality is or about what should or should not be legal and IMO a democratic government of laws is a better way to resolve this than a couple thousand year old book.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Is it too much to ask for people to keep their perversion out of the schools?

Teaching kids to accept their peers is not teaching homosexuality it is teaching tolerance and that bigory is not acceptable.

Is it too much to ask for people to keep their perversion out of the government?

And now you lost me, what perversion in the government do you speak of?

 

[morningstar2651]

Can you be more specific? What would it take to "prove" that something is the Word of God?

You could start with archaeological evidence that King David and King Solomon existed, as well as their kingdom as described in the Bible. From there, you could work your way back to Moses.

Maybe even find evidence of all the firstborn in Egypt dying in one night. That would be a huge jump in mortality.

Finding the Ark of the Covenant might be pretty good evidence.

Of course...this would just be a start.