What do you think gives you the right to tell other people how to live their lives?
eg;
Marriage equality
Homosexuals
Abortion laws
eg;
Marriage equality
Homosexuals
Abortion laws
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Bigotry
- Thread starter Meissner
- Start date
F
FundiMentalist
Guest
A popular phrase is, "Your Liberty To Swing Your Fist Ends Just Where My Nose Begins."
Here's an interesting analysis of the origins of the proverb.
Here's an interesting analysis of the origins of the proverb.
Upvote
0
F
FundiMentalist
Guest
However, it doesn't capture what we can do to defend those who can not defend themselves.
Somehow, at least to me, it seems there's a duty/opportunity to help others in their misfortune, especially in coming to their defense in the midst of bullies.
I sadly can't say an adage immediately comes to mind for that.
Yet, that doesn't seem exactly the same as "telling others how to live their lives," but it does seem somehow closely related.
Maybe...
It's that I can protect others' noses too.
Somehow, at least to me, it seems there's a duty/opportunity to help others in their misfortune, especially in coming to their defense in the midst of bullies.
I sadly can't say an adage immediately comes to mind for that.
Yet, that doesn't seem exactly the same as "telling others how to live their lives," but it does seem somehow closely related.
Maybe...
It's that I can protect others' noses too.
Upvote
0
Interesting question. From my perspective, it's people asking questions like these telling me what I can and cannot believe, can and cannot say, and can and cannot act out.
So, what gives you the right to demand an answer to a hypocritical question, questioning my right to do the very thing you do?
So, what gives you the right to demand an answer to a hypocritical question, questioning my right to do the very thing you do?
Upvote
0
I don't care what you believe, if you like to believe impossible non-sense for no good reason then good for you, I just prefer facts.
You can SAY what you like (to an extent) but if you can't back it up you are not entitled to be believed.
I am not hypocritical, the thing I want to do is take the stick away that you are using to beat other people with.
Like it was said in a previous post, your right to swing your arm ends at another persons nose.
Believe what you want, think what you like, worship whatever version of a particular one-of-a-million gods you think best suits you.
But don't try to use your beliefs to tell other people that "you know better" and that they don't have the right to pursue happiness if it doesn't hurt anybody and doesn't encroach onto the rights of other people.
Upvote
0
lesliedellow
Member
- Sep 20, 2010
- 9,654
- 2,582
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
What gives you the right to campaign against homicide? You might not like their views, but living with views you don't like is what democracy is all about. Come the next election you can get their legislation repealed by the party you support (if it wins), and then they will just have to live with things they don't like.
Upvote
0
F
FundiMentalist
Guest
Awww, c'mon, it's just getting interesting.
There's also this,
First, do no harm.
As a child, we used to say,
Stick and stones may break my bones,
But words will never hurt me.
I don't believe that's necessarily true. I suspect the brutality of the psychological realm and of verbal assaults can be nearly as severe as that of physical pain alone.
At the core of the question of the OP is, what gives one the right to tell...
What gives anyone "the right" to be verbally mean?
Upvote
0
Personally, I don't think it's necessary to campaign against homicide since there are already laws in place for such things.
Living with other peoples views is something that I am entirely fine with providing their view/beliefs don't impact onto the happiness of others who are just trying to live their lives and don't harm or hinder anybody in the process.
Trying to legislate laws to prevent consenting adults from doing what they wish with their lives (providing it isn't doing anybody any harm that they don't wish for) for no other reason than the fact that you don't like it, is bigotry and intolerance of the highest order, you have no right.
Upvote
0
F
FundiMentalist
Guest
Seems just to defend those who are not harming others and to protect their freedoms to do that which does no harm.
Where "legislating morality" slips from these high road principles, it seems to lose a credibility and it may not be received by others as being in graciously generous.
It may instead be suspect to be something rooted in fear and control and sadly for many this lacks a spiritually inspirational respectability.
"Arbitrary" gets injected in these dialogues some which is usually a manifestation of the "slippery slope argument."
Perhaps a related word is axiomatic.
In many ways, morality--the internal sense of right and wrong--simply is.
Many moderns have foundationalist epistemologies. There are only a few ways to terminate stacks of "why questions:"
1) God.
2) Others.
3) Self.
4) Mystery.
Or...
1) What's right and wrong is because God said it.
2) What's right and wrong is because society, and/or authority figures say so.
3) What's right and wrong is because I say so.
4) I can't honestly thoroughly explain or justify--even to myself--my own internal sense of right and wrong.
Where do these proverbs, adages, axioms, and commandments about right and wrong come from?
Meissner asking what makes you think the Bible came from God, relates to #2 vs. #1.
If I thoroughly externalize my own sense of right and right, do I numb myself to follow other than my own conscious? That doesn't seem right. Some of the world's worst atrocities have been committed when this rational has been followed to its logical conclusion.
Instead, do I thoroughly follow my own personal sense of right and wrong? While this seems better, how do I grow, learn, and change? There can be a numbness here too to exclusively making myself the measure of all things.
All of this begs "where" God is related to this.
For some God is thoroughly conceptualized as external. Out there. In Heaven. He is an independent Person and his morality isn't necessarily the same as one's honest-to-self own.
For others, especially the mystics, God is conceptualized as more so internal. That God is within. For Jesus of Nazareth, perhaps God wasn't even conceived of as separate from self.
Yet there did seem to be a mix and a mystery.
A few centuries of theological debate and orthodox Christianity arrived at the hypostatic union, which really doesn't seem to unrelated to this.
Anyhow, myself--that which is within me--axiomatically thinks that hurting others who are doing no one else harm is wrong. And if I were to have a concept of God (either a within-me one or an out-there one) it would be consistent with this. Serving a deity, any deity, with a different basis is in the might-makes-right realm and is so unpalatable as to warrant subversion to do the right thing.
I'll gladly do my best to do the right thing in making the world a better, kinder, gentler, more gracious place. And I'm mature enough to know that this requires a willingness and capability to do what it takes to defend those who can not defend themselves and to protect the rights of all to do that which does no harm to others.
Where "legislating morality" slips from these high road principles, it seems to lose a credibility and it may not be received by others as being in graciously generous.
It may instead be suspect to be something rooted in fear and control and sadly for many this lacks a spiritually inspirational respectability.
"Arbitrary" gets injected in these dialogues some which is usually a manifestation of the "slippery slope argument."
Perhaps a related word is axiomatic.
In many ways, morality--the internal sense of right and wrong--simply is.
Many moderns have foundationalist epistemologies. There are only a few ways to terminate stacks of "why questions:"
1) God.
2) Others.
3) Self.
4) Mystery.
Or...
1) What's right and wrong is because God said it.
2) What's right and wrong is because society, and/or authority figures say so.
3) What's right and wrong is because I say so.
4) I can't honestly thoroughly explain or justify--even to myself--my own internal sense of right and wrong.
Where do these proverbs, adages, axioms, and commandments about right and wrong come from?
Meissner asking what makes you think the Bible came from God, relates to #2 vs. #1.
If I thoroughly externalize my own sense of right and right, do I numb myself to follow other than my own conscious? That doesn't seem right. Some of the world's worst atrocities have been committed when this rational has been followed to its logical conclusion.
Instead, do I thoroughly follow my own personal sense of right and wrong? While this seems better, how do I grow, learn, and change? There can be a numbness here too to exclusively making myself the measure of all things.
All of this begs "where" God is related to this.
For some God is thoroughly conceptualized as external. Out there. In Heaven. He is an independent Person and his morality isn't necessarily the same as one's honest-to-self own.
For others, especially the mystics, God is conceptualized as more so internal. That God is within. For Jesus of Nazareth, perhaps God wasn't even conceived of as separate from self.
Yet there did seem to be a mix and a mystery.
A few centuries of theological debate and orthodox Christianity arrived at the hypostatic union, which really doesn't seem to unrelated to this.
Anyhow, myself--that which is within me--axiomatically thinks that hurting others who are doing no one else harm is wrong. And if I were to have a concept of God (either a within-me one or an out-there one) it would be consistent with this. Serving a deity, any deity, with a different basis is in the might-makes-right realm and is so unpalatable as to warrant subversion to do the right thing.
I'll gladly do my best to do the right thing in making the world a better, kinder, gentler, more gracious place. And I'm mature enough to know that this requires a willingness and capability to do what it takes to defend those who can not defend themselves and to protect the rights of all to do that which does no harm to others.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Of course God wrote the instructions that are in the bible who else could have done it silly? Jesus said all the things and they were all true and all nice and all good!
If god doesn't exist who invented Mexicans?
Tell me that one mr smart guy!
If you can make a Mexican in a sciency test tube then I'll be impressed but until that day I'll be a scholar on God's side!
If god doesn't exist who invented Mexicans?
Tell me that one mr smart guy!
If you can make a Mexican in a sciency test tube then I'll be impressed but until that day I'll be a scholar on God's side!
Upvote
0
Similar threads
