ASIDE from apparent Biblical injunctions...

[EnemyPartyII]

the point Im making is that personal opinion and desire, is a lousy standard of right and wrong- and when applied, you lose the basis to debate anything on moral grounds- as is illustrated here- people will make a case for anything.

So, rather than trying to accomodate everyone, a system which, as discussedm harms no one assuming informed consent... you would prefer an arbitrary list of imuteable laws that is applied to everyone without their consent?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Quote:
That's why Christian divorces are so high, right?

You can't tell me that 20% of America's population is responsible for our nearly 50% divorce rate.
? come again.

20% of the population, the non-christian section, is not responsible for the statistic that 50% of all marriages in Westernised cultures en in divorce

 

[Gusoceros]

So, rather than trying to accomodate everyone, a system which, as discussedm harms no one assuming informed consent... you would prefer an arbitrary list of imuteable laws that is applied to everyone without their consent?

A couple things here-

1) as is already demonstrated- you have proposed no such accomodating system- you only think you have, and fail to see its failings.

2) Right and wrong are already immutable.

3) Yes, I would prefer a system of right and wrong that was actually right and wrong.

4) Everyone in society by the vote of their address has consented to be governed by the rule of law.

G

 

[BigBadWlf]

As already noted- by what standard are we to judge something right or wrong, if the absolute truth is set aside? If it is set aside, and we go on personal evaluation- by what standard are we going to judge the answers? If it all comes down to personal wants and desires- what basis are the results to your question going to have?

In short- the question just doesnt really matter outside of Truth.

G

The end result being that there is no reason to justify prejudice and discrimination other than the personal desire of the individual who has chosen to engage in prejudice and discrimination against a particular minority….

 

[BigBadWlf]

This is my point exactly- on why personal opinions really suck as the standard for right and wrong. The fact that you have to ask what is wrong about consensual cannibalism is proof of that point, if there ever was.

So- why is it that I should redefine what is right, to what I want and desire as the standard, when history is replete with examples of this approach failing.

G

You desire an authoritarian system of morality and go to great lengths to fabricate one. But realize that even if an absolute right and wrong exist we still decide what that absolute law is and its details by engaging in relativism.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Have you seen the divorce rates in America. That is what comes from marriges that do not have God.

three problems with this claim.

First, you are stuck explaining why born again Christians have a significantly higher divorce rate than Atheists or Hindus or Jews or Muslims or Pagans.


Second you are left with explaining why the divorce rate was actually higher seventy years ago than it is today.


Third, you cannot explain just what does the high divorce rate of Christians have to do with the legal recognition of same sex marriage?

Do you think people having casual sex feel spiritually full afterwareds?

Who said anything about casual sex?

I asked for real life examples "hurt" caused by legal recognition of a same sex marriage atheist marriage and non-Christian marriage…you have pretty much admitted that despite your claims that such hurt exists you cannot actually provide any real world examples of such “hurt”.

I'm pretty sure that is addressed in the ten commandments. As well as the Golen rule.

I guess I missed "Thou shall not eat thy dead neighbor"

(Above response)

Sex outside marrige is wrong as far as rape goes.

Isrealites are told not to make slaves of each other, and as we are all christians, or have the abbility to become such, it is definiently wrong.

You obviously need to spend some more time reading your bible.
Exodus 21:2-6 details how to buy and abuse a fellow Israelite
Exodus 21:7-11 tells us how to make a profit by selling an unwanted daughter into slavery
1 Timothy 6:1-2 tells how a good Christian slave honors his/her Christian master.

 

[BigBadWlf]

How to be a slave.

Exodus 21:20-21 tells us that it is morally acceptable to not just beat a slave but also to kill a slave.

That is not loving then is it

Judges 21:10-24
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Deuteronomy 21:10-14
All detail the use of rape to force a woman into marriage.

 

[Gusoceros]

The end result being that there is no reason to justify prejudice and discrimination other than the personal desire of the individual who has chosen to engage in prejudice and discrimination against a particular minority….

Are we discussing the same topic? I reject your baseless assertions. Please stay relevant to my post.

G

 

[Gusoceros]

You desire an authoritarian system of morality and go to great lengths to fabricate one. But realize that even if an absolute right and wrong exist we still decide what that absolute law is and its details by engaging in relativism.

If by relativism, you mean we have to interpret for ourselves, and it matters if we get it right or not- then yes. If you mean that it is up to us whether we get it right or not, and there are no consequences for choosing wrongly- then no, I disagree.

It is my position, that people are free to get things wrong, but they are not free of the responsibility of getting it right, or the penalty for choosing the wrong choice.

G

 

[davedjy]

If by relativism, you mean we have to interpret for ourselves, and it matters if we get it right or not- then yes. If you mean that it is up to us whether we get it right or not, and there are no consequences for choosing wrongly- then no, I disagree.

It is my position, that people are free to get things wrong, but they are not free of the responsibility of getting it right, or the penalty for choosing the wrong choice.

G

Just like a woman is "Free", when she has to marry her rape attacker for life in Deut.?

 

[david_x]

Exodus 21:20-21 tells us that it is morally acceptable to not just beat a slave but also to kill a slave.

Punished for being marolly right?

20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

All detail the use of rape to force a woman into marriage.

They are not forced into marrige, the man is. There is no rape.

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [a] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

Exodus 21:2-6 details how to buy and abuse a fellow Israelite

Those versus say if you buy one you must let him go(after seven years.) The "abuse" is consentual.

Exodus 21:7-11 tells us how to make a profit by selling an unwanted daughter into slavery

Serventhood not slavery. Close but not the same. The Father is not in it for a profit, usually, he does it because he has to.

1 Timothy 6:1-2 tells how a good Christian slave honors his/her Christian master.

This is from a time when, had the slave gone free, the slave would be in a far worse position.

I guess I missed "Thou shall not eat thy dead neighbor"

Thou shal not kill. And your supposed to love your neighbor, in life and death. Your not supposed to eat dead flesh either.

First, you are stuck explaining why born again Christians have a significantly higher divorce rate than Atheists or Hindus or Jews or Muslims or Pagans.

I'm sure that there born again status is supported by this devorce?

Third, you cannot explain just what does the high divorce rate of Christians have to do with the legal recognition of same sex marriage?

That wasn't in response to "legal recognition of same sex marriage."

20% of the population, the non-christian section, is not responsible for the statistic that 50% of all marriages in Westernised cultures en in divorce

That is what i thought you meant but I don't see the relavance to what i said.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Do you consider beating a slave into a day's worth of unconsciousness or incapacitation, to be "morally right"? Not to mention that the passage clearly condones slavery outright

 

[EnemyPartyII]

They are not forced into marrige, the man is. There is no rape.

So... a man sees a hot young thang, and decides he'd like to marry her... he rapes her, against her will, and then the law says they have to get married...

This is

A. not rape how?
B. Moral how?

Your not supposed to eat dead flesh either.

Are you a vegetarian?

This is from a time when, had the slave gone free, the slave would be in a far worse position.

So a freed slave is actually worse off? Please explain?

 

[david_x]

Do you consider beating a slave into a day's worth of unconsciousness or incapacitation, to be "morally right"? Not to mention that the passage clearly condones slavery outright

So, it was lawful to have a slave back then. Please quit changing the subject.

 

[david_x]

So... a man sees a hot young thang, and decides he'd like to marry her... he rapes her, against her will, and then the law says they have to get married...

This is

A. not rape how?
B. Moral how?

That is a hypothetical situation that this verse does not even imply as moral. It is cheating/lieing.

Are you a vegetarian?

You can eat flesh that you have killed. Not just somthing already dead.

So a freed slave is actually worse off? Please explain?

He would be put into service again, but for a non-christian master.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

So, it was lawful to have a slave back then. Please quit changing the subject.

I'm not changeing the subject... the point is this... "back then" it was considered morally acceptible to own slaves.

Now, considering your whole argument against homosexuality seems to be that it was considered immorral "back then"... you need to explain why the morality of keeping slaves has changed, yet the morality relating to homosexuality is forever and ever immuteable and unchangeing

You can eat flesh that you have killed. Not just somthing already dead.

When is the last time you killed meant that you ate, compared to the last time you actually just ate meat that was already dead?

He would be put into service again, but for a non-christian master.

Um... what? How do you figure? Once a freed slave was free... they were a free person... I think you need to study your Roman history a little more before you make any further unsupported statements

 

[david_x]

I'm not changeing the subject... the point is this... "back then" it was considered morally acceptible to own slaves.

Now, considering your whole argument against homosexuality seems to be that it was considered immorral "back then"... you need to explain why the morality of keeping slaves has changed, yet the morality relating to homosexuality is forever and ever immuteable and unchangeing

They aren't related one wasn't bad and now is, the other stayed bad.

When is the last time you killed meant that you ate, compared to the last time you actually just ate meat that was already dead?

You took that way to literally. People don't cut up a cow that dies in the field, they cut up the ones they butcher.

Um... what? How do you figure? Once a freed slave was free... they were a free person... I think you need to study your Roman history a little more before you make any further unsupported statements

Whatever, who is going to believe a slave anyway?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

They aren't related one wasn't bad and now is, the other stayed bad.

[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]?

a. So you agree that certain moral standards CAN change?

b. Why does one change but not the other?

Whatever, who is going to believe a slave anyway?

Just... what? I mean... what? What are you talking about? Do you have any idea?

 

[david_x]

a. So you agree that certain moral standards CAN change?

b. Why does one change but not the other?

a. yes

b. they change because men of every nation can be saved not just Irealites.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

so if you agree that certain morals can change... why can't the moral standard regarding homosexuality change?