defending your views

[Gadarene]

Hello Tom. I re-read what i posted . Perhaps its only 'offensive' because a certain part of the Populace wishes to do whatever they want and expect the remaining People to embrace it and call it permissible and moral ? Could this be a possibility ?

The same question of course is applicable to your opinions.

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

My views are unfashionable most of the time. I remember listening to a discussion about gay marriage a few months back and found myself in the curious position of disagreeing with just about every viewpoint presented there.

I disagreed with the speaker (who was opposed to gay marriage) because I don't see why any secular couple shouldn't enter into a secular contract to acquire secular benefits. I also disagreed with the more liberal attendees because I don't see why any venue should be required to host any wedding that conflicted with their principles.

You are right that a lot of people expect their own views to be imposed on everyone else, and tolerance only goes one way. That said it can be quite funny when people who know I'm a Christian assume I have particular viewpoints only for them to realise that I don't expect anyone who isn't also a Christian to live by them.

Then, do you believe Gods written moral instructions for mankind, was only intended for Christians to follow (and it is permissible for non Christians / God Rejectors to totally disregard them without ultimate moral accountability/repercussions by God himself ) ? If so, thats a rather interesting summation coming from a professed Christian i must say.

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

The same question of course is applicable to your opinions.

True indeed, except what you call 'my opinion' isnt based on my subjectivity...rather its based on the same objective standard for ALL of mankind as coming from the personal Creator of us all. Now...if you can reasonably and logically show that the Creators character, nature, and written instructions to all of mankind are such that he would turn a blind eye to sexual perversion or even endorse it , then youd have somewhat of a case. And, if you can reasonably show that suppressing Ones God given moral conscience so we can act, behave, talk anyway "WE" deem fit is absolutely correct to do...then we could entertain your liberal-amoral assertions. Finally, if you wish to pretend that God doesnt even exist so Mankind can operate on his whims and urges for maximized pleasure without any ultimate moral accountability (as is very popular to do today) ... then you certainly have been granted the freewill to do so if you should desire. Regards.

 

[Gadarene]

True indeed, except what you call 'my opinion' isnt based on my subjectivity...rather its based on the same objective standard for ALL of mankind as coming from the personal Creator of us all.

The "objective standard" is one obtained from your subjective reading of a book.

Given that, the rest of your post is just neither here nor there.

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

The "objective standard" is one obtained from your subjective reading of a book.

Given that, the rest of your post is just neither here nor there.

1. If you simply dont want an objective moral law framework for your life or for the rest of humanity, then dont complain when you are the brunt of Someone elses morally-subjective personal decisions by way of amoral actions visited on you --- and if you do choose to complain, then you become a hypocrite based on your own philosophy.

2. The rest of my post was 'neither here nor there' because you dont want to have your life patterned after the highest form of morals and ethics known to mankind : The Bible. And that is very telling. End.

 

[Gadarene]

1. If you simply dont want an objective moral law framework for your life or for the rest of humanity, then dont complain when you are the brunt of Someone elses morally-subjective personal decisions by way of amoral actions visited on you --- and if you do choose to complain, then you become a hypocrite based on your own philosophy.

Except...even if that point was even remotely viable, it doesn't stop anyone from pointing out that we don't in fact have objective morals

2. The rest of my post was 'neither here nor there' because you dont want to have your life patterned after the highest form of morals and ethics known to mankind : The Bible. And that is very telling. End.

Nope - I made that point because the rest of your post was entirely predicated on your initial claim that your moral standard is objective - except it is not, it is subjective, because you are subjectively interpreting the Bible. This point has been dodged - or at the very least, claiming "but subjective morality is BAD!" is not actually evidence at all for objective morality.

So, if you want to be taken seriously, try again, and try harder.

 

[contango]

Then, do you believe Gods written moral instructions for mankind, was only intended for Christians to follow (and it is permissible for non Christians / God Rejectors to totally disregard them without ultimate moral accountability/repercussions by God himself ) ? If so, thats a rather interesting summation coming from a professed Christian i must say.

I must say you've either completely missed my point or twisted what I said into a totally different meaning.

I believe that God has certain intentions for all of us. I just don't expect the people who don't even believe in God to care what the Bible says any more than I care what the Qu'ran says.

That doesn't mean we as Christians get to shrug and do nothing, it just means that to expect "the world" to behave as we think they should behave is pointless.

 

[David Brider]

Hello Tom. I re-read what i posted . Perhaps its only 'offensive' because a certain part of the Populace wishes to do whatever they want and expect the remaining People to embrace it and call it permissible and moral?

No; it's offensive because you seem to think that the people in same-sex couples don't love each other in the same way that the people in opposite-sex couples do. That's not just offensive; it's also flat-out inaccurate.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Dear StormInside,
I don't know what those people said to you, but there's never any shortage of rude people on the internet, so it probably should not come as a surprise that discussing any controversial topic will trigger some unkind reactions.

That said, I'd like to engage in a civil discussion of the points you raised, because I find that they are completely untenable:
recognizing stable long-term relationships legally actually promotes conservative relationship models, regardless of the gender of the people involved. The antithesis of marriage is not "gay marriage", but indiscriminate promiscuity.

I can understand if your religious beliefs do not allow for same-sex relationships, just as certain religions do not allow people to eat pork, dance the waltz or work on a Sunday. Basically, nothing beyond that point is necessary - you don't need to come up with some far-fetched explanation for the taboo.

HOWEVER, just as with pork, the waltz, etc. I'd say that this is pretty much your personal decision, and a religious matter that ought to stay within your community of believers. If you go out and try to legislate your religious taboos for ALL people out there, that's the rough equivalent of Jews or Muslims trying to ban pork for everyone.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Dear StormInside,
I don't know what those people said to you, but there's never any shortage of rude people on the internet, so it probably should not come as a surprise that discussing any controversial topic will trigger some unkind reactions.

That said, I'd like to engage in a civil discussion of the points you raised, because I find that they are completely untenable:
recognizing stable long-term relationships legally actually promotes conservative relationship models, regardless of the gender of the people involved. The antithesis of marriage is not "gay marriage", but indiscriminate promiscuity.

I can understand if your religious beliefs do not allow for same-sex relationships, just as certain religions do not allow people to eat pork, dance the waltz or work on a Sunday. Basically, nothing beyond that point is necessary - you don't need to come up with some far-fetched explanation for the taboo.

HOWEVER, just as with pork, the waltz, etc. I'd say that this is pretty much your personal decision, and a religious matter that ought to stay within your community of believers. If you go out and try to legislate your religious taboos for ALL people out there, that's the rough equivalent of Jews or Muslims trying to ban pork for everyone.

If only more people could think like this. I wouldn't bet on it, but I can't see any argument against what you said that doesn't stem from personal, subjective beliefs. Well said Jane

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I believe that God has certain intentions for all of us. I just don't expect the people who don't even believe in God to care what the Bible says any more than I care what the Qu'ran says.

Well said Contango

 

[David Brider]

Do you ever find that if you try to defend your views against liberals they jump on you, complaining that you are intolerant, while they themselves are totally intolerant of your views?

Well...I don't have to defend my views against liberals, as I am one...

 

[Spiritlight]

Well...I don't have to defend my views against liberals, as I am one...

If liberal means open minded and tolerant then I am one too.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

If liberal means open minded and tolerant then I am one too.

I second that definition

 

[bricklayer]

Nothing good comes from disagreeing with people as to ideas.
The very worst things come from agreeing with people as to ideas.

 

[seashale76]

Do you ever find that if you try to defend your views against liberals they jump on you, complaining that you are intolerant, while they themselves are totally intolerant of your views?

Someone asked my opinion on gay marriage and I said that I didn't agree with it, as it lessens the seriousness of marriage and isn't good for society. Of course everyone jumped down my throat and had a huge go at me and ridiculed me, calling me intolerant, juvenile and an idiot.

Does anyone else feel wary of sharing their unfashionable views?

Yes- this happens to everyone (liberals, conservatives, moderates) at some point.

Truth time: Nobody is as tolerant as they'd like everyone to believe. That includes liberals, as liberals aren't usually tolerant of conservative views. They're human too. It's an everybody problem. Anyone who claims otherwise is in denial.

I must say that sometimes in the past, during internet 'discussions', I'd take a perverse pleasure in riling people up. I'd often even play up my views just to see the reaction. It's how I got banned from two other forums. You've not plunged the depths of being difficult on the internet until you've been banned for using a valid logical syllogism to prove your point.

 

[Tnmusicman]

My views are unfashionable most of the time. I remember listening to a discussion about gay marriage a few months back and found myself in the curious position of disagreeing with just about every viewpoint presented there.

I disagreed with the speaker (who was opposed to gay marriage) because I don't see why any secular couple shouldn't enter into a secular contract to acquire secular benefits. I also disagreed with the more liberal attendees because I don't see why any venue should be required to host any wedding that conflicted with their principles.

You are right that a lot of people expect their own views to be imposed on everyone else, and tolerance only goes one way. That said it can be quite funny when people who know I'm a Christian assume I have particular viewpoints only for them to realise that I don't expect anyone who isn't also a Christian to live by them.

That's the way it should be but if a group of people are calling us collectively as Christians bigots or what have you then we are doinked even before we open our mouths simply because the expectation of bigotry is there.

 

[crimsonleaf]

Liberalism is an interesting word, and in one sense is to be applauded and another derided.

The Church of England has just held a debate and vote on the ordination of female bishops. In the secular sense of liberalism this is obviously a good thing, but for the Church, less so. The outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury has accused those voting against it as "wilfully blind" to the needs and conventions of modern society (I paraphrase from memory). The term "wilfully blind" is verbatim. But what his liberalism illustrates is his desire that the Church change to accommodate society's views as a whole, rather than working (as he should) to attempt to conform society to the Church's view.

Taking Jane's point about promiscuity, this is something which has been "accepted" within the C of E generally, and in moving to this broader view of human relationships the Church has thrown away its ability to teach a definitive view on the subject, and in turn the very clear Biblical teaching.

And before anyone makes the point, yes, I would rather the Church was declared irrelevant in modern society and keep its Faith, than be diluted to a point of equal ineffectiveness and lose everything.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

And before anyone makes the point, yes, I would rather the Church was declared irrelevant in modern society and keep its Faith, than be diluted to a point of equal ineffectiveness and lose everything.

Well, you do realize that your life differs quite profoundly from those of the first Christians (and even more profoundly from those of the ancient Israelites), don't you?

And that's true regardless of just how reactionary or conservatively you interpret the Biblical scriptures. Chances are that your marriage bears little resemblance to the male-ownership model that was practiced in the ancient middle east, whether you regard yourself as head of the household or not. Chances are that you did not have to barter for your wife's hand with your prospective father-in-law, basically buying her off of him. You also do not live in a Christian commune that pools its resources, do not believe that slavery is somewhat acceptable (to the point where slaves ought to stay with their masters), and so on and so forth.

I do not know the exact outline of the moral world view you embrace, but I suspect that its primary basis is not to be found in the Scriptures, but in a kind of middle class morality that's been around for no more than 150-250 years, tops.

The very circumstances of life in a post-industrial society differ so fundamentally from those found in an agrarian society that trying to live by the rules of the latter while having to cope with the conditions of the former is virtually impossible. Change is not a "corruption", or a "dilution". It's more like a learning process.

 

[crimsonleaf]

Well, you do realize that your life differs quite profoundly from those of the first Christians (and even more profoundly from those of the ancient Israelites), don't you?

And that's true regardless of just how reactionary or conservatively you interpret the Biblical scriptures. Chances are that your marriage bears little resemblance to the male-ownership model that was practiced in the ancient middle east, whether you regard yourself as head of the household or not.

I'm not Amish so I embrace many of the changes the world has introduced while weeping over some of them too. The Christian "male-ownership" model of the Bible gives equal respect to females, recognising equality in value but differences in role and function. I subscribe to the "equal but different" ethos, and so does my wife, who is only very nominally Christian and doesn't attend church. She has always considered that I have the final say in all of the major decisions in the household. Nothing I ever sought, but something she decided.

I also came to Christianity fairly late in life, having built an atheistic and materialistic lifestyle which required two wages to support. While I may give all of that up in a heartbeat, I can't speak or act for my wife, who is less convinced. So we live, trapped by our past. Happy, but trapped nonetheless.

Chances are that you did not have to barter for your wife's hand with your prospective father-in-law, basically buying her off of him.

Oddly, I asked my prospective father-in-law for my wife's hand in marriage. No money changed hands but approval was sought. Had he refused, she would have honoured him and refused me. We've been together for 41 years, so that'll give you some idea that this was in the early 70's. My son did the same before marrying my daughter-in-law last year.

You also do not live in a Christian commune that pools its resources, do not believe that slavery is somewhat acceptable (to the point where slaves ought to stay with their masters), and so on and so forth.

The Christian commune appears to be a myth. There are one or two examples of pooled resources sure, but I belong to a church with 74 members, who have pooled resources to the tune of just over £1m in order to purchase and refurbish a larger building to meet our expanding congregation. People have used life savings, re-mortgaged their houses and pledged half their earned income. Not too dissimilar to the old days. True about the slaves though, especially now the kids have grown up and left home.

I do not know the exact outline of the moral world view you embrace, but I suspect that its primary basis is not to be found in the Scriptures, but in a kind of middle class morality that's been around for no more than 150-250 years, tops.

Well then you'd have to show that the morality of 150-250 years ago was markedly different from early church times. Then you'd have to show, rather than guess, that I subscribe to it.

The very circumstances of life in a post-industrial society differ so fundamentally from those found in an agrarian society that trying to live by the rules of the latter while having to cope with the conditions of the former is virtually impossible. Change is not a "corruption", or a "dilution". It's more like a learning process.

I'm not opposed to change, nor have I stated that I am. I'm opposed to the Church weakening its message to accommodate the views of those who find its message difficult to handle,or who are otherwise indifferent to it. On the C of E website, Rowan Williams describes Christ as, "Jesus Christ, the one human being who is completely in tune with God", a watered down presentation of His divinity, for example.